Skip to main content

Full text of "Agenda"

See other formats



San Francisco Public Library 



Government Information Center 
San Francisco Public Library 
100 Larkin Street, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA b-ii02 

REFERENCE BOOK 



Not to be taken from the Library 



MINUTES OF THE LONG-RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE 
m , MEETING OF MAY 21, 1990 



A70MZ 
fas 



Ballet Board Room 
Monday, May 21, 1:30 p.m. 

Present: 

Chair: Commissioner Robert LaRocca 

Commissioner Barbara Sklar 

Commissioner Anne Healy 

Commissioner Kim Fowler 



3 DEP" 

JUN i " '•" 

CO 
PUEUC L 



Absent: Commissioner Rai Okamoto 

Also present: Claire N. Isaacs, Arts Commission Director 

The meeting began at 2 p.m. with the arrival of Commissioner La 
Rocca. Comm. Fowler arrived at 2:05 p.m. 

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Charter amendment 
being proposed by Sup. Nancy Walker to add three new members of 
the San Francisco Arts Commission, namely, 

an ex officio member from the Asian Art Museum Commission, a 
film professional and a representative of the S.F. Museum of 
Modern Art. Members of the Committee had had mailed to them 
copies of the Charter as it exists, the proposed amendment, and 
a draft of a list of issues which might also be addressed in a 
charter review concerning the A/C. 

Comm. Sklar reported on her telephone discussion with Sup. 
Walker: the additions would be one ex officio and two working 
members. Sup. Walker has given priority to the addition of a 
film commissioner, because the present new Film and Television 
Commission is for commercial purposes, selling San Francisco as 
a venue for shoots. The appointment should be a "film artist", 
not industrial. 

The reason for the addition of the Asian Art Museum is because 
it is emerging as a major art institution, separating from the 
de Young and moving to Civic Center. 

Claire Isaacs explained that the Asian has always been 
independent of the Fine Arts Museums. However it was private 
but became a City Commission with a Charter amendment in the 
November 1988 election. This was necessary to allow it to 
operate an entire city building, i.e. the old Main Library to 
which it is moving. The Pres. of the Asian Art Museum's presence 
would thus be equivalent to that of the Pres. of the Fine Arts 
Museums (now on the Commission). 

Re the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Comm. Sklar explained 
to Sup. Walker that the addition of a representative from one 
private arts organization might open the door to demands from 



3 1223 07086 3130 



others to be included also. She suggested instead that another 
working member be added, that of an arts educator. 

In general, those present endorsed support of a film artist, an 
arts educator and representation of the Asian Art Museum, but 
felt that the SFMMA should not be represented. 

Comm. Sklar had also asked if Sup. Walker would support the 
addition of a reuqirement to reimburse Commissioners for meeting 
attendance, as is done at most other Commissions, since it is an 
economic hardship for some members. Supervisor Walker said she 
would look into this. 

Discussion centered on clarifying the quorum, the large 
percentage of ex officios, and the role of the film artist 
(as there are no A/C film programs). Isaacs explained that 
funding for programs for literature and performing arts did not 
exist, so that those commissioners serve on other committees. 
It was felt that efforts should be made to find ways either to 
program or to support existing programs in the performing arts 
and literature, such as offering assistance to the annual 
Theatre Week, using the use of Civic Auditorium during POPS to 
present jazz or new world music, strenthening the visual arts 
network as already exists in the performing arts service 
organizations, 

working with the 1992 Columbus five hundred years celebration, 
broadening the arts awards to include emerging as well as 
arrived artists. Isaacs would discuss the issue of an 
appropriate number for a quorum with the City Attny. 

Discussion also ensued regarding changing the existing wording 
pertaining to advice on "lines, grading and platting" which 
does not adequately address issues of urban design. Comm. La 
Rocca suggested: ..."and its approval shall be required for 
every such structure AND MAJOR PUBLIC PLACE (OR SIGNIFICANT 
URBAN SPACE). Isaacs is to check out wording and La Rocca's 
attorney will be asked for advice, as well as the City Attorney's 
office (Geo. Kruger, Katherine Pennypacker and Don Garibaldi in 
particular) . 

Isaacs also requested that the Charter be changed from "Art" 
to "Arts" Commission to reflect the current usage and make it 
consistent with official documents. 

In summary: the Committee supports the addition of a film 
artist, an arts educator, and the Chair of the Asian Art Museum 
(the latter exofficio), reimbursement of Commissioners attending 
monthly meetings, the change from art to ARTS Commission, and 
asks Isaacs to research the urban design issue. She in turn 
described briefly the stages of preparing for a Charter 
amendmen, including preparation of Voter handbook argument, 
position paper, etc. 



In addition to the Charter amendment, the Committee discussed 
and brainstormed on a number of other issues: 

Comm. Fowler suggested a look at priorities as developed in the 
retreat in October 1989 at the Majestic Hotel, and recirculation 
of the minutes was requested from Dir. Isaacs. 

Comm. Sklar noted that the New York Arts Commission held a rally 
for the National Endowment for the Arts, suggesting the SFAC 
might take on my advocacy, which creates public attention. 
Comm. Healy agreed that such a role would give the A/C more 
visibility and remind people that the arts are a major eonomic 
factor in San Francisco. The loss of audiences and closing of 
galleries due to the earthquake, the scaling down of Festival 
2000, the scrambling for dollars of local performing arts 
companies were all noted by Comms. Sklar and Fowler. 

Comm. La Rocca suggested bringing back the Arts Awards, adding a 
stipend as well as the honor, and Comm. Healy suggested the 
awards be broadened to support not only artists with lifetime 
achievement, but the liveliest arts today. Some discussion 
included using the funds for arts awards to instead support a 
public event such as Theatre Week. Bus shelters ads might be 
contributed also. 

Comm. Fowler would like to see a more formal link with the arts 
service organizations, and Dir. Isaacs noted that Open Studio 
will be approaching the A/C for some kind of assistance/support. 

Discussion also centered on reaching younger audiences, linking 
up with south of Market arts group, using the POPS in a more 
forward manner artistically, such as a night devoted to new 
world music, and even holding a "Beaux Arts Ball". 

The meeting concluded with the setting of the next meeting on 
July 2 at 1:30 P.M., preceding the July Arts Commission monthly 
meeting, and in the same locale. A progress report on the 
Charter amendment will be prepared and the notes of last 
October's retreat will be reprinted and redistributed to 
Committee members. 



City and County 
of San Francisco 




txioxs 



25 Van Ness Avenue 

Suite 240 

San Francisco. CA 94102 

(415)554-9671 



MAYOR 
ArtAgnos 



COMMISSIONERS 

Barbara Sklar 
President 

Nancy Boas 
Vice President 

Vernon Alley 
Stanley Elchelbaum 
Kim Fowler 
Daniel Genera 
AnneHealy 
John Krlken 
Robert F. LaRocca 
Amalla Mesa-Bains. Ph.D. 
Ral Y. Okamoto 
Dodle Rosekrans 



EX OFFICIO MEMBERS 

Presidents of the 
Fine Arts Museum 
Library Commission. 
Planning Commission, 
Recreation and Park 
Commission 



DIRECTOR 
Claire N. Isaacs 



CsfJ 



NOTICE 
I. 



-^AGENDA 

-^J_ONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 
Tuesday, July<17, 1990 
<£Arts Commission Conference Room 
25 Van Ness Avenue - Suite 70 - 1:30 p.m. 

The Public Is Invited To Attend and Comment 



The Arts Policy Plan of the State/Local Partnership 
Program 

Members of the State/Local Advisory Committee will join 
the Long Range Planning Committee in discussing their 
views of the Plan and the Arts Commission component. 

Other Commissioners will attend and express their views 
on the Arts Policy Plan. 



II. Unfinished Business 

III. New Business 



DOCUMtij/o DEPT. 

Jill " 
SAi . 
PUBLIC LI 



PROGRAMS 
Arts Festivals 
CMc Art Collection 
CMc Design Review 
Neighborhood Arts 
POPS Symphony Concerts 
Public Art Program 
Street Artists Licenses 



Suite 430 

Sate-Local Partnership 

415-554-9677 

ArtHouse 

415-554-9679 



Arts Commission Gallery 
155 Grove Street 
415-554-9682 




City and County 
of San Francisco 





25 Van Ness Avenue 

Suite 240 

San Francisco. C A 94102 

(415)554-9671 



^fQ 



MINUTES 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
AUG 2199Q 

•-..-.,,'- HMD AOV 



„ LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 
Tuesday, July 17, 1990 
Arts Commission Conference Room 
25 Van Ness Avenue - Suite 70 - 1:30 p.m. 



In Chair Sklar's absence, 
to order at 1 :45 p.m. 



Commissioner LaRocca called the meeting 



MAYOR 
ArtAgnos 



COMMISSIONERS 

Barbara Sklar 
President 

Nancy Boas 
Vice President 

Vernon Alley 
Stanley Elchelbaum 
Kim Fowler 
Daniel Genera 
Anne Heaty 
John Krlken 
Robert F. LaRocca 
Amalla Mesa-Bains, Ph.D. 
Ral Y. Okamoto 
Dodle Rosekrans 



EX OFFICIO MEMBERS 

Presidents of the 
Fine Arts Museum 
Library Commission, 
Planning Commission, 
Recreation and Park 
Commission 



Excused 

Anne Healy 



ROLL 

Present 

Barbara Sklar 

Kim Fowler 

Rai Okamoto (arr. 2:03 p.m.) 

Robert LaRocca (dep. 3:30 p.m.) 

Others Present 

Claire Isaacs, Director of Cultural Affairs 
Nancy Boas, Member, Arts Commission (arr. 2:30 p.m.) 
Leah Forbes, State/Local Partnership Program Coordinator 
Lemora Martin, Acting Commission Secretary 

I. ARTS POLICY PLAN OF THE STATE/LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM 

At Committee Chair Robert LaRocca 's request, Leah Forbes 
gave a brief report on the Arts Policy Plan. She stated 
that the current draft, titled, " Preliminary Draft Proposal 
for Citizen Review" incorporates suggestions of individuals 
who participated in the many focus group meetings. 



DIRECTOR 
Claire N. Isaacs 



PROGRAMS 
Arts Festivals 
CMc Art Collection 
CMc Design Review 
Neighborhood Arts 
POPS Symphony Concerts 
Public Art Program 
Street Artists Licenses 



Suite 430 

Sate-Local Partnership 

415-554-9677 

ArtHouse 

415-554-9679 



Arts Commission Gallery 
155 Grove Street 
415-554-9682 




She briefly outlined the following changes: 

a. One major change in focus of one of the goals: 

A dual section will be devoted to arts organizations 
and individual artists, giving them greater prominence. 

b. A major issue — as seen by other arts institutions — 
was the defined role of the Arts Commission. 

This draft reflects language modifications. 

c. It is believed that the Planning Department will be 
receptive to the language that will go into the Plan 
vis a vis land use, zoning, suggested development fees, 
literary arts, etcetera. 

d. This is a very general document that does not always 
assign responsibilities for policies. Eventual changes 
will be dealt with on a continuous basis, as the need 
for them arises, with respect to various City 
departments. The AC is not expected to initiate all of 
the changes referred to in this document. 



MINUTES Page 2 07/17/90 LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE 



Discussion occurred concerning releasing the entire Plan, 
even though the AC has reservations concerning some sections 
of it, after the Commissioners review and revise the section 
on the Arts Commission. 

Commissioner Sklar raised the issue of releasing a document 
without analyzing it in terms of the best interests of the 
AC, and without ascertaining its compatibility with the City 
Charter. She stated that the Commission as a body does not 
have the time to do this complete analysis. Some discussion 
occurred, with consensus being that nothing in the Plan as 
currently written hampers the Arts Commission in any way — 
rather, it adds responsibility. 

Commissioner Fowler acknowledged receiving copies of written 
commentary on the Plan, sent to the Long Range Planning and 
State- Local Committees by Leah Forbes, and noted some common 
themes and concerns which were consistent with her own, as 
fol lows: 

a. Leadership role of the Arts Commission 

b. need for prioritizing policies and actions 

c. Plan is seen as a "wish list" — lack of definition 
of what the Plan is and what it is not 

d. some implementing actions already in place (perhaps 
more specific language is needed, i.e., "Continue 
to. . . " ) 

e. definition of 'multi-cultural' is unclear 

f. budgetary impact not addressed (perhaps this will 
happen later) 

g. how will policies/actions be implemented, and by whom? 
h. Grants for the Arts purview still an issue; perception 

that their process is being interfered with 
i. ability of the Arts Commission to monitor the 
implementation of the plan. 

Commissioner Okamoto arrived at 2:03 p.m., during the above 
discussion. 

Discussion continued on the following: Defining 'multi- 
cultural' must be dealt with before the Plan goes out; does 
the Plan interfere with the role of "Grants For The Arts"; 
is the function of the Plan to "bring everyone together" or 
raise issues to be dealt with; AC should issue a caveat 
along with the Plan, upon release, to the effect that some 
issues are still not dealt with. 

Commissioners agreed that a document cannot be released that 
they do not feel comfortable with. 

Commissioner Okamoto stated that the Planning Commission 
doesn't participate in reviewing plans, as the Arts 
Commission was now doing. By the time the Planning 



MINUTES Page 3 07/17/90 LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE 



Commission does approve a plan, however, some consensus has 
been reached. It was Claire Isaacs' understanding that 
workshops on the plan would be held by the Planning 
Commission after a draft was released for citizen review. 
Director Isaacs also noted that the prospective application 
to the NEA's Locals Program was based on the Arts 
Commission's having a plan. 

Commissioner Sklar noted that the Arts Policy Plan was a 
plan for the whole city — not just an Arts Commission plan — 
and proposed a letter from the Commissioners critiquing the 
Plan as other Departments have done. More discussion 
occurred regarding how to get the Arts Commission as a group 
to respond to the Plan, so as to agree on and feel 
comfortable with a version for release. 

Director Isaacs stated that the Charter revisions recently 
proposed and discussed at the July 9 Regular Monthly Meeting 
will not be on the ballot this fall. She stated that the AC 
Charter revisions as a whole should take 3-5 years, and the 
Plan as released may take this into consideration, vis a vis 
the defined role of the Arts Commission. 

Commissioner Boas arrived at 2:30 p.m., prior to the 
following discussion, which she joined. 

The Committee began to edit and reword the Draft Proposal: 

Page 15 /Objective C: 

Change 'Restructure and Reorganize' to 'Maintain and 
Strengthen. 

Page 16/Objective C/Paragraph 1: 

Delete the sentence, "The struggle of the Arts Commission to 
maintain credibility in the arts community calls for a 
comprehensive assessment and reorganization of the agency so 
that the City can play a more effective leadership role in 
the arts." 

Replace it with, "Increase the visibility of the Arts 
Commission in the community through broader communication to 
the public of its mandates, responsibilities, services and 
programs so that the City can play a more effective 
leadership role in the arts." 

Policy 1/Page 16: 

Change "Revise the legal powers and responsibilities..." 
to read, "Enhance the legal powers and broaden the 
responsibilities of the Arts Commission", etcetera. 

Background/Page 16: 

Consider Changing the phrase 'civic design' to 'urban 
design'. The implications of this change to a more all- 



MINUTES Page 4 07/17/90 LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE 

inclusive term were discussed. Define 'civic design' and 
'multi-cultural' in the glossary on Page 61. 

Implementing Actions/Item 1/Page 16: 

Delete the word 'public' in the first line, and delete the 
next two sentences, beginning with "The process should be 
guided...", through "...reformulated in this process." 

Implementing Actions/Item 2/Page 16: 

Delete entire sentence. 

Policy 2/Page 17: 

Delete and 'activities' and 'major', and revise the sentence 
to read: "Maintain existing and establish new arts policy 
coordination as a function of the Arts Commission within 
City government". 

implementing actions/Page 17: 

Delete Items 1 and 2. 

Change Item 3 to read, "Continue advocacy functions of the 
Arts Commission, including addressing arts issues..." 
etcetera. 

Policy 3/Page 17: 

Change this to be an implementing action rather than a 
policy. Delete the words "Establish and", and begin the 
sentence with "Maintain Arts Commission ombudsperson 
services to guide artists..." etcetera. 

Background/Page 18: 

Delete the entire paragraph. Take the first sentence, "Each 
of the many departments..." and move it to Policy 2/ 
Background/Page 17 . to read, "In 1988, 23 departments or 
commissions within the government structure of the City and 
County of San Francisco had department policies or programs 
which are directly related to the arts. Each of the many 
departments having direct impact upon the arts community has 
policies, procedures, guidelines, or requirements which 
apply in various ways to arts organizations and artists". 

Delete all three Implementing Actions on Page 18 
incorporating parts of 2 and 3 into those under Policy 2 on 
Page 1 7 : 

After all above revisions, these will read: 

1. Continue advocacy functions of the Arts Commission, 
including addressing arts issues of regional, 
statewide, national, and international significance. 

2. Maintain Arts Commission ombudsperson services to 
guide artists and arts organizations through city 



MINUTES Page 5 07/17/90 LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE 

procedures, such as arts-related permits and multi- 
lingual translators to assure availability of arts 
resources to the broad spectrum of the arts community 
and the community at large." 

Delete Policy 5/Pages 18 and 19. including Background and 
'Implementing Actions', entirely. 

Some discussion occurred concerning this last deletion of a 
whole section of evaluation of the Arts Commission's 
effectiveness. Consensus was that this is a 'management' 
issue rather than a policy statement, and therefore does not 
belong in this document. 

Commissioner LaRocca departed at 3:20 p.m. after this 
discussion, and Commissioner Sklar assumed the role of 
Chai r . 

Some discussion occurred over where to insert a statement 
concerning increasing the Arts Commission's public profile. 

Director Isaacs raised the issue of determining a basic, 
continuing, reliable funding source for the Arts Commission, 
citing examples of how San Francisco and other cities have 
done this for various commissions. 

Commissioners Okamoto and Sklar responded that this is not a 
Master Plan issue. 

Commissioner Fowler noted that the document talks about an 
objective of 'maintaining and strengthening' the priorities 
of the agency, without going into any detail after that as 
to exactly what sort of strengthening is meant. 

As an example, she cited the mandate to be more responsive 
to the Community, yet nothing is explicitly stated except 
that there will be a review process to look at the Charter. 

She recommended reviewing the list of priorities as 
determined at the December 20, 1989 Special Meeting. 

A further revision was recommended to Objective C/Page 15: 

This sentence will be added onto Paragraph 1: "The Arts 
Commission is presently in the process of developing a long 
term plan for the agency to meet the growing, changing needs 
of San Francisco". 

Commissioners felt that frequently the Draft was stating the 
obvious, as though many policies and established procedures 
were not already in place. Policy 1 on Page 20, along with 
its implementing actions, having to do with representative 
populations being included in City agencies and bodies which 
deal with arts and the Human Rights Commission purview over 



MINUTES Page 6 07/17/90 LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE 

issues of discrimination in access to arts funding, 
programming and facilities, were cited as such examples: 

"Policy 1: Actively recruit and include representative 
populations in City agencies and bodies 
which deal with arts (e.g. funding, promotion, 
programming, arts policy, selection of art or 
artists, facilities development and use). 

Implementing Actions 

1. City arts decision-making panels or committees should 
be representative of the San Francisco population. 

2. When an arts issue, program, project, or policy is 
under consideration by the City, the Mayor's Office 
should insure multi-cultural participation in the 
review process. 

3. The Human Rights Commission should establish a formal 
review process to address and make recommendations 
about issues of discrimination in access to arts 
funding, programming, and facilities." 

Director Isaacs noted that the community had expressed an 
ardently supported position that there should be a public 
statement and declaration of the importance of multi- 
cultural ism in the arts. She said that the Human Rights 
Commission's jurisdiction was over City agencies, but when 
one gets into grants making and arts funding, there is 
widespread community feeling that cultural events geared to 
a white, 'Eurocentric' constituency, e.g. the Symphony, 
Opera, Ballet, and major museums, were favored over other 
communities in terms of superior facilities in prime 
locations. 

Some further discussion occurred about the overall Draft and 
the wording of some sections. It was agreed that changes to 
the Arts Commission section of the Draft would be made and 
that a cover letter, signed by Barbara Sklar, would be 
written to accompany the full draft for public distribution. 
This course of action would be presented by the Long Range 
Planning Committee to the full Commission for approval at 
the August 6th meeting. Commissioners agreed that today, no 
further editing would be done on sections other than that 
pertaining to the Arts Commission. 

End of Discussion 

II. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 

Commissioner Sklar requested that the Committee be provided 
with a list of priorities, as established at the December 
20, 1989 Special Meeting, at its next meeting. 



MINUTES Page 7 07/17/90 LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE 

II. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued) 

She stated that September 10 is not a good day for the 
Regular Monthly Meeting, as she will be out of town. The 
meeting will be held during the previous week on September 
4, 5, or 6. An exact date will be determined soon. 

Commissioners agreed to hold the next Long Range Planning 
Committee Meeting on August 8, Wednesday, at 2:30 p.m. 

III. NEW BUSINESS 
None. 

IV. ADJOURNMENT 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 
3:43 p.m. 

Submitted by: 



Lemora Martin 

Acting Commission Secretary 



SF 

City and County ». . __ 

of San Francisco fl 7(3 4-0 




S»/8 ^o 




^^LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 
15*240^ Ave ™ >^ Wednesday, August 8, 1990 

son Francisco, ca 94102 Arts Commission Meeting Room 

(415)554^671 25 Van Ness Avenue _ suite 70 - 2:30 p.m. 



I. Arts Policy Plan - Next Phase 
mayor II. Neighborhood Arts Program 

ArtAgnos 

III. Agency Plan 
commissioners DOCUMENTS DEFT. 

Barbara Sldar 

President AU G 2 &%$ 

Nancy Boas 

Vice President SAi'M t-KH»\t^liSCQ 

VemonAHey »UBIJC UIBRARV 

Stanley Elchelbaum 

Kim Fowler 

Daniel Genera 

AnneHealy 

John Krlken 

Robert F. LaRocca 

Amalla Mesa-Bains. Ph.D. 

Ral Y. Okamoto 

Dodle Rosekrans 

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS 

Presidents of the 
Fine Arts Museum 
Library Commission, 
Planning Commission, 
Recreation and Park 
Commission 

DIRECTOR 
Claire N. Isaacs 

PROGRAMS 
Arts Festivals 
CMc Art Collection 
CMc Design Review 
Neighborhood Arts 
POPS Symphony Concerts 
Public Art Program 
Street Artists Licenses 

Suite 430 

Sate-Local Partnership 

415-554-9677 

ArtHouse 

415-554-9679 

Arts Commission Gallery 
155 Grove Street 
415-554-9682 




City and County 
of San Francisco 




25 Van Ness Avenue 

Suite 240 

San Francisco. CA 94102 

(415)554-9671 



A70. 45 

8|8ho 



JSF h^SCOMHi 



^MINUTES 

^ LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 
Wednesday, August 8, 1990 
Arts Commission Conference Room 
25 Van Ness Avenue - Suite 70 - 2:30 p.m. 



Commi ttee 
2:47 p.m. 



Chair Robert LaRocca called the meeting to order at 



MAYOR ROLL 

Art Agnos 



COMMISSIONERS 

Barbara SWar 
President 

Nancy Boas 
Vice President 

Vernon Alley 
Stanley Eichelbaum 
Kim Fowler 
Daniel Genera 
Anne Heary 
John Kriken 
Robert F. LaRocca 
Amalia Mesa-Bains, Ph.D. 
Rai Y. Okamoto 
Dodie Rosekrans 



EX OFFICIO MEMBERS 

Presidents of the 
Fine Arts Museum 
Library Commission. 
Planning Commission. 
Recreation and Park 
Commission 



DIRECTOR 
Clare N. Isaacs 



PROGRAMS 
Arts Festivals 
CMc Art Collection 
CMc Design Review 
Neighborhood Arts 
POPS Symphony Concerts 
Public Art Program 
Street Artists Licenses 



Suite 430 

Sate-Local Partnership 

415-554-9677 

ArtHouse 

415-554-9679 



Arts Commission Gallery 
155 Grove Street 
415-554-9682 



Present Excused 

Barbara Sklar None 

Kim Fowler 
Rai Okamoto 
Robert LaRocca 
Anne Healy 

Others Present 

Claire Isaacs, Director of Cultural Affairs 
Nancy Boas, Member, Arts Commission (arr. 3: 
Leah Forbes, State/Local Partnership Program 
Lemora Martin, Acting Commission Secretary 



07 p.m. ) 
Coordinator 



ARTS POLICY PLAN OF THE STATE/LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM 

At Committee Chair Robert LaRocca 's request, Leah Forbes 
gave a brief report on the Arts Policy Plan's next phase. 
She stated that the Plan will go out for public review by 
mid-August. There will be a 30 day review period. The 
first hearing will be about the end of September. After 
hearings, the Plan will go through another revision prior 
becoming a final draft. 



to 



Paul Lord, Project Director for the PI 
had suggested that the first hearing m 
just the Arts Commission, rather than 
of the Arts and Planning Commissions, 
were taken and changes made, it would 
Department where only those elements h 
Master Plan would be considered by the 
George Williams, Director of Plans and 
Planning Department, and Paul Lord wou 
sections were to be reviewed by City P 



an at City Planning, 
ight take place before 
before a joint session 

After AC comments 
go to the Planning 
aving to do with the 

Planning Commission. 

Programs for the 
Id decide which 
lanning. 



Further discussion occurred regarding the method of taking 
public testimony and the eventual final approval by the AC. 
Commissioner Okamoto was to confer with Mr. Williams over a 
decision about a joint hearing. 




MINUTES Page 2 08/08/90 LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE 



II. NEIGHBORHOOD ARTS PROGRAM 

Director Isaacs opened discussion regarding the current 
state of, and future of NAP in general. She stated that 
the Program has been without a director for six months and 
much of the work has been well handled by the Assistant 
Director. As this Commission will be hiring the new NAP 
Director, they may wish to consider revamping the position 
to incorporate more responsibilities having to do with the 
Agency in general, rather than NAP exclusively. 

The NAP Committee has had to deal with so many crises, it 
has been unable to focus on long range planning for this 
program. Director Isaacs stated her regret that she has not 
taken the Commissioners on an official tour of the Cultural 
Centers to better acquaint them with the programs there. 

Commissioner Sklar responded that recommendations for 
actions should be contained in Community Relations 
Coordinator Anne Smith's report. While the Commission may 
determine policy with regard to the future of the Program, 
information in this report should be the basis for these 
decisions. 

Director Isaacs stated that Smith's report does contain some 
recommendations for future action, but deals more with 
analysis of community sensitivities regarding the Program. 
She stated she will bring copies of this to the next 
Committee Meeting, but feels that the leadership of the 
Program, e.g. hiring a new Program Director, is a separate 
issue . 

Some discussion occurred, and various points were raised: 

a. Many of those who started the Cultural Centers are 
still around and could be valuable sources of insight 
and advice. This would indicate sensitivity to the 
communities on the part of the new Commission. 

b. Sources of information have been developed over the 
past year, e.g. notes from the joint State/Local-NAP 
Meeting, the Western Addition Cultural Center Meeting. 

c. Looking at NAP was one of the priorities determined at 
the retreat of 12/21/89. 

d. Commissioners do not feel comfortable with the way the 
AC role in the Cultural Centers has changed over the 
years from that active program and service development 
to that of landlord/granting/technical assistance. 
They wish to change from policeman/facilitator to 
helper, e.g. a Cultural Center Day could be sponsored 
by the AC, with an award given to a Center for best 
presentation . 



MINUTES Page 3 08/08/90 LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE 

II. NAP (Continued) 

e. If the Fillmore substation were habitable, it could 
house those groups who are fighting for control of 
WACC and the current Board could remain intact at the 
Center. 

f. The purpose of the Cultural Centers is to keep the arts 
community based, e.g. in the neighborhoods and for the 
neighborhoods. Discussion concerned what happens when 
an outside group comes in with a broad-based agenda, 
the scope of which is far greater than the neighborhood 
focus, and tries to take the neighborhood Center over. 
Sometimes the solution is fortuitous, as in the case of 
the Lorraine Hansberry Theatre; sometimes it is 
divisive and embittering, as in the current conflict at 
the Western Addition Cultural Center. 

III. AGENCY PLAN 

Some general discussion occurred regarding priorities of the 
Agency as established during the December Retreat. 

Commissioner Healy stated frustration with inadequate 
Gallery presentations to the Visual Arts Committee, and 
wants a dialogue between this Committee and the Gallery 
Advisory Board to occur soon. 

Commissioner Sklar requested that staff of NAP, State/Local, 
the Gallery, Civic Design, and the Friends each prepare a 
written statement of overall goals and objectives, as well 
as problems and frustrations, for their respective Programs. 

LAA Grant 

Director Isaacs described the general outline of the NEA 
Local Arts Agency Grant, which she and Leah Forbes are 
currently writing. She stated two requirements which the AC 
has only recently met: 

a) a cultural plan for the city, with broad-based 
community involvement, 

b) a two to one match of new public monies; the Arts 
Commission must put up $100,000.00 per year to get 
$50,000.00, or $300,000.00 over three years to 
get $150,000.00. The Agency will make the match 
from a combination of the Youth Arts Fund, Market 
Street Fund (Bus Shelter ads revenues), some lease 
money, and some POPS money. 

Director Isaacs stated she has hired consultant Elizabeth 
Kennedy to help write the grant. 



MINUTES Page 4 08/08/90 LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE 

III. AGENCY PLAN/LAA Grant (Continued) 

She stated that this money can fill in the gap of what can't 
be funded by Grants For The Arts, namely: 

Arts Service Organizations 

Emerging Artists Organizations 

individual artists (not during the first two years) 

youth arts education 

Artist housing 

Administrative costs can also be supported. 

Considerable discussion ensued regarding all the above. 
Director Isaacs stated that this grant cannot just be used 
for existing programs; that the scope of programming must be 
broadened. Commissioners felt that the grant must fit in 
with priorities established by them, with regard to programs 
that already exist. Commissioners also expressed concern as 
to how the new programming mandated by the grant would be 
staffed. 

Director Isaacs noted that nothing is carved in stone; 
aspects for the grant can be changed with each year. There 
is a great deal of flexibility. The NEA simply wants some 
reference to a process, e.g. the Arts Policy Plan. They 
judge the process and how it was arrived at, rather than the 
content. Implementing strategies do not have to be spelled 
out. 

Discussion returned to staffing, with Commissioners stating 
that since Agency staff are working at capacity now, how can 
they possibly take on the new programming the grant will 
bring. 

Director Isaacs stated that staff have expressed enthusiasm 
for this grant application. The cost of hiring someone to 
deal with the grant application process will be built into 
the grant. 

Commissioner Boas departed at 3:50 p.m., during this 
discussion. 

Commissioners requested copies of the application guidelines 
and budget being prepared for the grant application. 

Commissioners agreed the money will go toward ArtHouse, Arts 
Education via the Youth Arts Fund, arts service 
organizations, and emerging arts organizations, e.g. the 
Gal lery . 

It was felt that grants to individual artists were not 
feasible at this time, given the level of Agency staffing, 
and this will not be pursued. However, agreement was 



MINUTES Page 5 08/08/90 LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE 



III. AGENCY PLAN (Continued) 

reached to phase individual artists grants into the third 
year on a pilot basis, because of strong community demand. 

IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 

Commissioner Sklar opened discussion concerning the process 
for picking Director Isaacs' successor. Director Isaacs 
recommended talking to Jackie Nemerovski about the procedure 
used when the previous Commission hired her. Some more 
discussion followed. 

V. NEW BUSINESS 

Commissioners agreed to hold the next Long Range Planning 
Committee Meeting on Thursday, September 27, at 2:30 p.m. in 
Suite 70. 

Brief discussion turned again to the statements requested 
from those who staff the aforementioned five Programs -- the 
Gallery, NAP, State/Local, Friends and Civic Design. To 
this end, Commissioner Sklar requested that copies of the 
minutes of the recent joint meeting between the 
Commissioners and the Friends Board of Directors be provided 
the Committee prior to the next meeting. 

VI. ADJOURNMENT 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 
4:15 p.m. 

Submitted by: 




Lemora Martin 

Acting Commission Secretary 




pn Ness Avenue 
(240 

| : ranclsco. CA 94102 
| 554-9671 
* 621-3868 



3R 
gnos 



Memo To 

From: 
Date: 
Re: 



MISSIONERS 

ira Sklar 
I lent 

i y Boas 
I 'resident 

|>n Alley 

|>y Elchelbaum 

I :l Genera 

I Healy 

h <riken 

I IF. LaRocca 

ii y Llm 

la Mesa-Bains. Ph.D. 

k Okamoto 

I • Rosekrans 



(FICIO MEMBERS 

1 snts of the 
e rts Museum 
I* Commission, 
I ng Commission, 

• atlon and Park 

# ilsslon 



S TOR OF 

I RAL AFFAIRS 

1 e Chow Wlnshlp 



S^MS 

I 1 stlvals 

I vrt Collection 

I >esign Review 

I x>rhood Arts 

I Symphony Concerts 

I Art Program 

H Artists Licenses 



•6 30 

h ocal Partnership 

H 1-9677 

■+ se 

N 1-9679 



3 

4 
5 



^? Long Range Planning Committee 

A. Healy, J. Kriken, R. LaRocca, 
R. Okamoto, B. Sklar 

Joanne Chow Winship OtCvtx 
September 10, 1991 " 



Long Range Planning Committee Meeting 
September 16, 1991, Monday 
"^^>T:00 p.m. - 2:45 p.m. 
25 Van Ness, Suite 70 



DOCUMENTS OEPT. 

SEP 1 3 1991 

PUEtUC ' 3 HAHY 



<^* 



GENDA 



Determination of desired outcome 

- Examination of mission statement 

- Working toward a plan to guide Commission 
policies and programs. 

- Establishment of non-profit organization to 
facilitate grants and services. 

Outline of external and internal factors 

- Identification of arts community and public needs 
and how Commission programs do, should, or may not 
meet them, i.e arts education, non-profit arts 
organization and artistic discipline needs, 
marketing needs of the arts, etc. 

- Relationship of arts task force findings, arts 
policy plan, and Commission responsibilities. 

Determination of scope of planning work 

Timel i ne 

Who will be involved and responsible for what 

- Advantages of a facilitator to work with staff and 
Commissioners to identify, clarify and consolidate 
ideas, recommendation and plans. 

Setting of next meeting date 



t'immlsston Gallery 
l 'ive Street 
-.' 1-9682 



„(-id County 
in Francisco 




an Ness Avenue 
240 

: ranclsco.CA 94102 
i554-9671 
#621-3868 



s ^AftTeOMM/3Sic?J 



DOCUMENTS nr 

OCT 4 m 

-MINUTES . . .. . ,7f 

^ LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING ^ ' rt> RAftY 
y/ \s^ Monday, September 16, 1991 

25 Van Ness Avenue - Suite 70 - 1:00 p.m. 

Note: This Committee is convening for the first time since 
August, 1990. 



*n\ 



OR 
gnos 



Committee Chair Robert LaRocca called the meeting to order at 
1 : 10 p.m. 



I . ROLL 



1MISSIONERS 

ota Sklar 
dent 

:y Boas 
President 

on Alley 
ey Eichelbaum 
3l Genera 
■ Healy 
I Kriken 

krt F. LaRocca 
ny Lim 

ia Mesa-Bains. Ph.D. 
I Okamoto 
$ Rosekrans 



Excused 

Barbara Sklar 



Present 

Anne Healy 

John Kriken 

Robert LaRocca 

Rai Okamoto (arr. 1:30 p.m. ) 

Others Present 

Joanne Chow Winship, Director of Cultural Affairs 
Nancy Boas, Member, San Francisco Arts Commission 
Lemora Martin, Arts Commission Secretary 



: FICIO MEMBERS 

tents of the 
Vts Museum 
y Commission, 
ing Commission, 
satlon and Park 
nission 



:tor OF 

JRAL AFFAIRS 
ie Chow Winship 



iRAMS 
astivals 

Art Collection 
Design Review 
iborhood Arts 
Symphony Concerts 
: Art Program 
Artists Licenses 



!I30 
Local Partnership 
& 4-9677 
■ jse 
& 4-9679 



te jmmission Gallery 
5 ove Street 
5- 4-9682 



I 



II. CONSTITUENCY NEEDS/EXAMINATION OF MISSION STATEMENT 

Director Winship reported that she has reviewed past minutes of 
this Committee, and those of the December 1989 Special Meeting 
of the full Commission, held at the Hotel Majestic. A quick 
synopsis of the current issues may suggest that a big question 
facing the Arts Commission would be to determine its mandate 
regarding who it serves and what it should become. 

Two issues were cited: 

a. Outer pressure from the community, with expectations of the 
AC as to what it should do; 

b. What the Agency's actual mandate is, according to Charter 
definition. 

Winship cited the Agency's Mission Statement, drafted in 1985, 
which is all-encompassing. LaRocca responded that the Mission 
Statement is a "wish list", and the technical Charter is the 
actual mandate. The Charter mandates Civic Design, the POPS, 
and Art Enrichment. 

A general discussion began regarding Arts Commission Programs 
and the future of the Arts Commission, vis a vis the Arts Policy 
Plan and the Cultural Affairs Task Force. 



LRPC/MINUTES/09/ 16/91 



-2- 



ARTS COMMISSION 



II. CONSTITUENCY NEEDS (Continued) 

Three possible future pathways for the Arts Commission were briefly 
outlined and discussed: 

(1) Revising the Charter to become more responsive to community 
needs, thus requiring increased budget allocations in order 
to address those needs. 

(2) Adjustment of the Charter to more specifically and narrowly 
focus its authority and responsibility. 

(3) Become more of a 'Civic Arts Commission', specifically 
addressing art in the public environment. 

The urban design aspect of the City's Master Plan was discussed, as it 
relates to the jurisdictions of, respectively, the Planning Commission 
and the Arts Commission. 

Commissioners briefly encapsulated the Civic Design Review discussion 
of the new library design --as discussed at the September 4 regular 
monthly meeting-- for Commissioner Kriken, who was excused from that 
meeting . 

Further discussion concerned the need to establish uniform urban 

design criteria for both Planning and Arts Commission reviews. 

It was noted that any process created by these agencies impacts many 
people in the community. 



Commissioners di 
recommendations , 
is changed, and 
approvals, with 
occur. They exp 
further meetings 
recommendations . 



scussed the recurring situation where they make 

the project goes back to the Planning Commission and 
then comes back to the Arts Commission for further 
no staff tracking the interim process as the changes 
ressed frustration at not being kept informed of 
with other agencies, subsequent to their initial 



Commissioners st 
ways: by the la 
specific respons 
the fact that th 
Commissioner is 
schedule conflic 



ated that this situation has been exacerbated in two 
ck of a staff person at the Arts Commission with 
ibility for the Civic Design Review Committee; and by 
e Planning Commission President and Ex-Officio Arts 
unable to attend Arts Commission meetings, due to 
ts. 



Commissioner Okamoto arrived at 1:30 p.m 
discussion . 



during the above 



III. ESTABLISHMENT OF A NON-PROFIT FISCAL RECEIVER 



Director Winship opened discussion of the necessity of beginning the 
process of starting a new 501-C-3 agency for the Arts Commission, 
noting the recent dissolution of the Friends of the San Francisco Arts 
Commissi on . 



LRPC/MINUTES/09/16/91 -3- ARTS COMMISSION 

III. FISCAL RECEIVER (Continued) 

After brief discussion, the following recommendation was then made for 
presentation before the full Commission on 7 October: 

Motion to begin the process of forming a new non-profit A 

fiscal receiver to assist the Arts Commission with grants 
and other financial services. 
Moved: Robert LaRocca 
Consensus: Unanimous 

Brief discussion followed. Commissioner LaRocca suggested that 
Winship, Commission President Barbara Sklar and former Arts 
Commissioner Roselyne Swig --who set up the Friends-- meet with each 
other as a beginning. 

IV. ARTS COMMISSION PARTICIPATION /CULTURAL AFFAIRS TASK FORCE 

Since the Commission was undergoing this planning process, it was 
important to keep informed of the Board of Supervisors Arts Task 
Force. The Commission should have representation at all the meetings, 
preferably from the Long Range Planning Committee. 



V. ARTS COMMISSION CHARTER CHANGES 

Commissioners briefly discussed hiring an outside facilitator — 
possibly someone from the City Attorney's Office-- to work with staff 
and Commissioners to identify and clarify goals in the Arts 
Commission's programs according to Charter and Ordinance mandates. 

It was suggested that Deputy City Attorney Kathryn Pennypacker be 
invited to attend the next Committee meeting. 

Commissioners briefly stated Charter changes they would like to see: 

a. Change the word 'buildings' to 'construction' in the 
section governing public art. 

b. Broaden the scope and sites that art enrichment monies many be 
applied to. 

c. Change the Percent for Art Ordinance administrative fee. 

Commissioners agreed on the necessity to examine the Agency program by 
program, in order to decide what Charter changes are necessary, prior 
to going on the ballot. 

Commissioners agreed that Charter Changes should be the focus of the 
next Long Range Planning Committee Meeting, noting that as they 
determine precisely what these changes are to be, they can begin to 
shape the Agency's policies, accordingly. 



LRPC/MINUTES/09/ 16/91 



-4- 



ARTS COMMISSION 



VI. SETTING NEXT MEETING DATE 

Director Winship stated that currently , the bulk of her time is spent 
working with the programs Lo establish a budget, particularly the 
Public Art Program. This is made more problematic due to the absence 
of Assistant Director Anne Kronenberg, who is still convalescing. 

The next Committee meeting was tentatively set for November 7, 
Thursday, at 3:30 p.m. 

In the meantime, Director Winship stated that she would do some 
research on Charter Amendments, and report back to the Committee at 
that time. 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m. 



Submitted by 




Lemora Martin, Acting Commission Secretary 



and County 
jn Francisco 




£2 



\\\i 



& , 



J* 



an Ness Avenue 

.240 

Francisco. CA 94102 

1554-9671 

#621-3868 



<S#/k G E N 1) A 

LONG RANGE PLANNING C Otl MITT U . MEETING 
Thursday, Novembez^/7 , 1391 



3:30 p. n.' 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70 



Of? 
.gnos 



1MISSIONERS 

ara Sklar 
dent 

:y Boas 
President 

on Alley 
ey Elchelbaum 
el Genera 
s Healy 
Kriken 

>rtF. LaRocca 
iy Lim 

Ha Mesa-Bains. Ph.D. 
. Okamoto 
e Rosekrans 



: FICIO MEMBERS 

ients of the 
Vts Museum 
Y Commission, 
ting Commission, 
jation and Park 
Tiission 



1. Charter Revisions and Related Ordinances 



~~"n/lEi\|TS DEPT. 

NdV t w 1991 

SAN FRANCISCO 
■HifcUC I IQRARY 



i:torof 
i jral affairs 

i ie Chow Winshlp 



URAMS 

1 9Stivals 

i Art Collection 

( Design Review 

I iborhood Arts 

I Symphony Concerts 

I : Art Program 

= Artists Licenses 



M30 

i ! Local Partnership 

> i4-9677 
■use 

> >4-9679 



S ommlsslon Gallery 
) ove Street 
>• 4-9682 



SF 



232 A70, 1 +5 




n Ness Avenue 
240 

anclsco, CA 94102 
554-9671 
621-3868 



)R 

jnos 



tflSSIONERS 

ira Sklar 
ent 

/Boas 
•resident 

■ Alley 

sy Elchelbaum 

I Genera 

Healy 

<riken 

"t F. LaRocca 

y Um 

a Mesa-Bains. Ph.D. 

Okamoto 

i Rosekrans 



FICIO MEMBERS 

ents of the 
irts Museum 
I Commission, 
ng Commission, 
atlon and Park 
ilsslon 



Memo To 

From: 
Date: 
Re: 



Long Range Planning Committee 
A. Healy, J. Kriken, R. LaRocca, 
R. Okamoto, B. Sklar 



Joanne Chow Winship v 
December 9, 1991 




DOCUMENTS QEP7 

DEC 1 1 1991 



Long Range Planning Committee Meeting 
/^•December 13, 1991, Friday 
<^10:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon 

25 Van Ness, Suite 70 



^ 



GENDA 



1. Approval of September 16, 1991 minutes 

2. Discussion on suggested Charter and Ordinance Changes 
(Katheryn Pennypacker, City Attorney's Office) 

3. Creation of a Non-profit Fiscal Agent 

4. Request for Proposal guidelines for L.R. Planning 

consul tant/f aci 1 i tator . 



TOR OF 
RAL AFFAIRS 
e Chow Wlnshlp 



RAMS 
istivals 

Vrt Collection 
)eslgn Review 
Dorhood Arts 
iymphony Concerts 
I Art Program 
Artists Licenses 



30 

I ocal Partnership 
•i 4-9677 
jse 
1 1-9679 



' >mmlsslon Gallery 
< ive Street 
•i 1-9682 



and County 
3p Francisco 




SF 

fV70. H5 
#1 



P. 



i/l3frl 



|an Ness Avenue 

1 240 

Francisco, C A 94102 

) 554-9671 

#621-3868 



MINUTES 

^^LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 
"^ Monday, December 13 , 1991 



25 Van Ness Avenue 



Suite 70 - 10:00 a.m 



Committee Chair Robert LaRocca called the meeting to order at 
10:25 a.m. 



gnos 



IMISSIONERS 

3ra Sklar 
dent 

j.-y Boas 
'President 

on Alley 
sy Elchelbaum 
i\ Genera 
Healy 
! Kriken 

rt F. LaRocca 
(>y Urn 

la Mesa-Bains, Ph.D. 
I Okannoto 
I i Rosekrans 



I . ROLL 



Excused 

John Kriken 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

Bffi 3 1991 



Present 

Robert LaRocca 

Barbara Sklar 

Anne Healy 

Rai Okamoto (arr. 10:42 a.m. ) 

Others Present 

Joanne Chow Winship, Director of Cultural Affairs 
Maya Rath, Administrative Assistant 
Kathryn Pennypacker, Deputy City Attorney 



II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES/SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 



l-TICIO MEMBERS 

(tents of the 
Krts Museum 
I y Commission, 
I Ing Commission, 
jtationand Park 
inisslon 



The Minutes of the previous meeting, September 16, 1991, were 
unanimously approved. 

Moved: Barbara Sklar 
Consensus: Unanimous 



(TOR OF 

| JRAL AFFAIRS 
I le Chow Winship 



3RAMS 

jsstlvals 

I Art Collection 

( Design Review 

i borhood Arts 

F Symphony Concerts 

3 Art Program 

il Artists Licenses 



V30 

tl Local Partnership 
n 4-9677 
lose 
<< 4-9679 



i] Jmmlssbn Gallery 
(ove Street 
I 4-9682 



III. CHARTER AND ORDINANCE CHANGES 

Deputy City Attorney Kathryn Pennypacker responded to questions 
posed by the Committee: 

1. Charging Fees for Civic Design Review: Section 3.601 of the 
City Charter states that no charge shall be made by the Arts 
Commission for review of private property. Charging of fees 
to the private sector will require a Charter change by the 
voters . 

Director Winship noted that the Charter language concerning 

fees refers to private property and suggested that charging 

a service fee of other City departments would not require a 
Charter change. 

Pennypacker will look into the possibility of doing this. 
She noted that once approved, this fee would go into a 
special fund, the proceeds of which would be appropriated to 
defray administrative costs. 



LRPC/MINUTES/12/13/91 -2- ARTS COMMISSION 

III. CHARTER/ORDINANCE CHANGES (CONTINUED) 
2. Public Art: 

a. Sec. 3.13 Admin. Code/Increase Administrative Fee 
charged by the Arts Commission to a maximum of 20%: 

Ordinance can be changed by the Board of Supervisors. 

b. Allocate small percentage of each project budget for a 
conservation fund: Ordinance can be changed. 

c. Change wording of Ordinance to make applicable to 
new construction/capital improvement projects. 

Word 'buildings', in Ordinance as currently written, 
should be changed to 'construction'. 

Increasing the mandated 2% art enrichment portion 
of public construction budgets was discussed. It was 
recommended that the authority to make adjustments, via 
rules and regulations, be built into the Ordinance. 

Discussion concerned maintenance monies for public art projects and 
how best to allow for these, and several suggestions were made: 
Building the maintenance cost into the overall cost of the project 
itself; creating a specific line item in the Arts Commission's capital 
budget; pooling monies for conservation of new projects separately 
from that for existing ones. 

Commissioners requested that Pennypacker investigate the feasibility 
of pooling bond monies for new public art projects, so that if art is 
not appropriate on a particular site, those funds could then be used 
on a more appropriate one. 

Pennypacker recommended making all Charter changes at the same time, 
and considering all of them now. 

Commissioner LaRocca stated that the Ordinance should be revised to 
allow art enrichment for existing parks and public spaces. Currently, 
the Arts Commission can only get it for new ones. 

Pennypacker requested that the Commissioners write up a narrative of 
all the changes they wish to see in the Charter and ordinances, e.g. 
what would the Public Art Program look like if they could redesign it 
as they want it. Winship commented that the Visual Art Committee will 
be reviewing policies and procedures for the Public Art Program in 
January . 



LRPC/MINUTES/12/13/91 -3- ARTS COMMISSION 



IV. CREATION OF A NON-PROFIT FISCAL AGENT 

Director Winship stated that Collections Manager Debra Lehane is 
looking into insurance issues of the City art collection. She 
requested that Pennypacker look into the feasibility of the Commission 
charging a fee for cleaning, matting, framing and transporting a work 
of art when it is loaned to another City Department. 

Commissioner Okamoto arrived at 10:42 a.m., during the discussion of 
increasing the percent for art enrichment. 

Winship reported that she has spoken with Michael Hone, an attorney 
specializing in non-profits, who established the Non-Profit 
Corporation for the Fine Arts Museums. From their discussion, she 
made the following recommendations: 

1. Determine what the organization is to be in addition to being 
a fiscal agent. 

2. Its mission and board structure need to be carefully thought out. 

3. After filing for tax-exempt status, there is a year and a half to 
set up board structure. 

Commissioners noted that in order to get a quality board, the AC must 
give them something of value in return. 

V. REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL GUIDELINES FO R 
LONG RANGE PLANNING CONSULTANT/FACILITATOR 

Commissioners discussed the need for an internal planning process 
within the Agency, vis a vis the implementation phase of the broader 
Arts Policy Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. 

It was agreed that first an internal planning process must be 
undertaken with the Arts Policy Plan as a reference. Implementation 
of the Arts Policy Plan would be the next phase. 

A fee in the range of $30,000.00 was discussed to hire a consultant 
for facilitating meetings with staff, Commissioners, and special focus 
group meetings and developing the written plan. 

VI. SETTING NEXT MEETING DATE 

Director Winship and Commissioners agreed to set a date for the next 
meeting in February, 1992, exact date to be determined after the 
hoi idays . 



LRPC/MINUTES/ 12/ 13/91 



-4- 



ARTS COMMISSION 



VII. ADJOURNMENT 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m 



Submitted by: 




Lemora Martin, Acting Commission Secretary 



X 



:ify/6nd County 
f/ftan Francis ' 
2^ 




5 Van Ness Avenue 

uite 240 

an Francisco. CA 94102 

J15) 554-9671 

AX #621-3868 



ROGRAMS 

irts Festivals 

:ivic Art Collection 

;ivic Design Review 

immunity Arts 

and Education 

OP'S Symphony Concerts 

ublic Art Program 



uite 430 

treet Artists Licenses 

15-554-9677 

irtHouse 

15-554-9679 



.rts Commission Gallery 
55 Grove Street 
15-554-9682 



/SS 




Z?y 



MINUTES 



LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 
Tuesday, May 26, 1992 

M . 

2 5 Van Ness Avenue - Suite 70 - 4:30 p.m. 



M I IMS 

r ?^.fJ?ANC/SCO 

™auc tmnARv 



Attendees; Commissioners Robert LaRocca, Committee Chair, 
Anne Healy, John Kriken, Rai Okamoto, and Director of 
Cultural Affairs Joanne Chow Winship. 

Excused: Commissioner Barbara Sklar 

The meeting commenced at 4:55 p.m. with review of a draft 
of Request for Proposals for Consultants to guide and 
coordinate the long range and strategic planning process 
for the Commission, and to help define the Commission's 
role within the City's Arts Policy Plan. 

The Committee reviewed the scope of services with 
suggestions to structure phasing of the work with 
timelines not to exceed 12 months. Also reviewed were 
Qualifications of Consultants, Final Selection Procedures, 
Affirmative Action, and Submittal Requirements. A limit 
on proposal fee was discussed with the recommendation that 
proposals not exceed $55,000.00. 

It was decided that no more than five finalists were to be 
interviewed and that the interviewing committee be 
composed of Commissioners Okamoto, Healy, Kriken, LaRocca, 
and Director Winship. 

It was agreed to proceed with letting out of the request 
for proposals. 

The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. 



Submitted by: 



Joanne Chow Winship 
Director of Cultural Affairs 



Date 









sr 



id County 
Fiancisco 




Ness Avenue 
JU 
inclsco. CA 



34-9671 
21-3868 FAX 






1/ 

frH~f cjhh-jS'wO depository iTge, 

D( 



HI/ 

AGENDA 



JUN 2 9 1992 

/ J- nSCJSCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Id 



LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 

Wednesday, July 1, 1992" 
3: 0(Pp7m7~ 
2 5 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 7 



1. Jordan 



I. Approval of Minutes, May 26 Committee Meeting 



IISSIONERS 

leaty 
mt 

(iken 

Obklal it 

) Alley 

Boas 

/ Eichelbaum 

Genera 

F. LuRocca 

Lirn 

Dkamoto 
Rosekrans 
aSklar 



CIO MEMBERS 
nts ot the 
Is Museums 
Commission. 
g Commission, 
ition arKl Park 
ssion 



OR OF 

'AL AFFAIR 

■ Chow Winship 



II. Street Artist Licensing Program Review 

A. Enabling Legislation 

1. Purpose 

2. Advisory Committee Composition and Duties 

3. Jurisdiction 

B. Administrative Procedures 

C. Policy Issues 

1. Quality Control 

2. Number and Location of Sales Areas 

3. Other Issues to be Identified 



JAMS 

: e 

5 livals 

u t Collection 

I ssign Review 

I inity Aits 

ft Jucutioii 

S-incerts 

fc.rt Program 



itttists Licenses 
Si 9677 



31 

3 /e Street 
5f 9682 



31 



ty and County 
San Francisco 







Van Ness Avenue 
ite 240 

in Francisco, CA 
102 

15)554-9671 
15) 621-3868 FAX 



AvVs Cj 



V 



^REVISED 
AGENDA 



AYOR 

ank M. Jordan 



. LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 
Monday, August 31, 1992 
3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70 



DMMISSIONERS 

ine Healy 

esident 

ihn Kriken 
ce President 

srnon Alley 
ancy Boas 
anley Eichelbaum 
aniel Genera 
)bert F. LaRocca 
enny Lim 
3lY. Okamoto 
adie Rosekrans 
arbara Sklar 



I. Discussion of Proposals 



II. Selection of Consultants for Interviews 



III. Discussion of Cultural Affairs Task Force 
Recommendations 



(OFFICIO MEMBERS 
esidents ot the 
ie Arts Museums 
srary Commission, 
anning Commission, 
jcreation and Park 
Dmmission 



RECTOR OF 
JLTURAL AFFAIRS 
anne Chow Wlnship 



DOCUMENTS DEPT, 
AUG 25 1992 



OGRAMS 
Mouse 

»>ic Art Collection 
/ic Design Review 
immunity Arts 
I nd Education 
' 'PS Concerts 
blic Art Program 



SAN rKANCUaCO 



set Artists Licenses 

te70 

5)554-9677 



tilery 

> Grove Street 
5) 554-96B2 





; Van Ness Avenue 

jite240 

1m Francisco. CA 

1 102 

(15)554-9671 

(15) 621-3868 FAX 



OGRAMS 
/lc Art Collection 
Ac Design Review 
immunity Arts 
nd Education 
If'PS Concerts 
folic Art Program 



Sle70 

8 Jet Artists Licenses 
1 5) 554-9677 

/ House 

f t Mason Center 

t ding C 

Si Francisco, CA 

9 23-1382 
(5)885-1194 



lery 

Grove Street 
5) 554-9682 






\ 



sr 



\\ 



^ 



MINUTES 



DOCUMFNTS DEPT. 

OCT 01 1992 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



NG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 
Monday, August 31, 1992 

25 Van Ness Avenue - Suite 70 - 3:00 p.m. 

Commissioners Present : Robert LaRocca, Committee Chair, John 
Kriken, Barbara Sklar, Rai Okamoto (arr. 3:25 p.m.) 

Commissioners Excused : Anne Healy 

Others Present : 

Joanne Chow Winship, Director of Cultural Affairs 

Lemora Martin, Acting Commission Secretary 

I. Discussion of Proposals 

Commissioners discussed proposals submitted by the following: 

Louise Stevens/ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 

Robert Bailey/AMS Planning and Research Corporation 

Matthew O' Grady 

Roger Hardy/Center For Non-Profit Resources 

Meg Madden and Warren Newman 

II. Selection of Consultants for Interviews 

Commissioners agreed that the first two proposals were the 
strongest, and they would interview both teams. 

Ordered : 

Motion to invite the consultant teams known as ArtsMarket and 
AMS Planning and Research to interview for the Long 
Range/ Strategic Planning Project for the San Francisco Art 
Commission. 

Moved: Robert LaRocca 
Consensus: Unanimous 

III. Discussion/Cultural Affairs Task Force Recommendations 

Director Winship reported on the latest recommendation from the 
Super Committee: Taking hotel tax monies that go towards 
maintenance on Davies Symphony Hall and the Opera House, and 
putting them into arts programming, in exchange for low/no rent 
on a long term lease on those buildings. The programs proposed 
are: Cultural equity initiatives; small or medium sized 
organizations; individual artist commissioning projects; and 
arts facilities. It was also recommended that the Art 
Commission, due to its public process, administer these 
programs. Other funds to combine with these monies are: Half 
of unanticipated events monies at Grants for the Arts. This 




LRPC/MINUTES/08/31/92 



-2- 



ARTS COMMISSION 



III. Cultural Affairs Task Force Discussion (Continued) 

would be half of approximately $350,000.00. 

The Symphony favors this idea, feeling that the savings on the 
approximately $4 00,000.00 they currently pay in rent is worth it, and 
that they can more effectively raise and spend maintenance monies on 
their own. 

The Opera and Ballet, housed in a much older building, are not 
currently in favor of this measure. 

The Task Force will meet again and continue discussion on Tuesday 
evening, September 1. 

Everyone agreed that if any additional programming is given to the 
Art Commission, increased staffing must also come with it. 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. 

Submitted by: 




Lemora Martin 

Acting Commission Secretary 



Date 



04 ■ /9-*)Z- 




Joanna/Chow Winshi] 
Director of Cultural Affairs 



Date f 



1y and County 
San Francisco 




Al0- L is 



m 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

SEP 23 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



I Van Ness Avenue 

■ te 240 

h Francisco, CA 

1 02 

5)554-9671 

5) 621-3868 FAX 



3GRAMS 
Ic Art Collection 
Ic Design Review 
-nmunity Arts 
id Education 
3 S Concerts 
)lic Art Program 






9 70 

et Artists Licenses 

i) 554-9677 

House 

Mason Center 
dingC 

Francisco. CA 
23-1382 

,) 885-1 194 



ery 

Grove Street 

) 554-9682 



\ 



^ 



\ls g 



a^i*MSS/o«J 



4 

\A G E N 



D A 



jON G RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 
^Friday, September 25, 1992 

1:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 7 



1. Interviews with Consultants for Long Range Strategic 
Plan. 



2 . Resolution to approve hiring of Consultant Team 




X§?TO 



ty and County 
San Francisco 







SF 



^ 



^ 






T E 8 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

OCT 01 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Van Ness Avenue 

te 240 

n Francisco, CA 

102 

5)554-9671 

5) 621-3868 FAX 



3GRAMS 
-ic Art Collection 
■ic Design Review 
mmunlty Arts 
id Education 
PS Concerts 
3lic Art Program 



e70 

)et Artists Licenses 

5) 554-9677 

House 

t Mason Center 

dingC 

i Francisco, CA 

23-1382 

5)885-1194 



lery 

Grove Street 

)) 554-9682 



0N6 RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 
Friday, September 25, 1992 
1:00 p.m. 

25 Van Ness Avenue - Suite 70 

Commissioners Present : Robert LaRocca, Committee Chair, 
Anne Healy, Rai Okamoto 

Commissioners Excused : John Kriken 

Others Present : 

Joanne Chow Winship, Director of Cultural Affairs 

The Commissioners interviewed two consultant teams from the 
five proposals initially submitted: AMS Consulting and 
ArtsMarket Consulting. 

The following resolution was then moved by Commissioner Healy: 

Ordered : 

Motion to allow the Director of Cultural Affairs to enter into 
contract with ArtsMarket Consulting for the Long Range/ 
Strategic Plan for the San Francisco Art Commission, for an 
amount not to exceed $55,000.00. 

Moved: Healy 
Consensus: Unanimous 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. 



Submitted by: 




Joanna Chow Winshrj 
Director of Cultural Affairs 




t - b*g, /??£- 



Date 




'0- V5 

y and County / 

5an Francisco 




Van Ness Avenue 

te240 

t Francisco, CA 

102 

5)554-9671 

5) 621-3868 FAX 



DGRAMS 
'lc Art Collection 
■Ic Design Review 
mmunlty Arts 
id Education 
PS Concerts 
3lic Art Program 



e70 

>et Artists Licenses 
13)554-9677 
I House 

I Mason Center 
dingC 

I Francisco, CA 
123-1382 
i 5)885-1194 



iJery 

I Grove Street 

I .) 554-9682 



AGENDA 



^Lcmc 



llai 



an Francisco 



Art 



Commission 



g Range Strategic Planning Retreat 

2899 Vallejo Street 
San Francisco, CA 94123 



Sunday, November 22, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. 




Members of the San Francisco Art Commission will meet to 
discuss Agency Long Range and Strategic Planning. The 
meeting will be facilitated by Beth Kanter of ArtsMarket 
Consulting. 



DOC1 «M*=WTS OEPT. 
NOV 1 8 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 




2\ty and County 
>( San Fianclsco 




5 Van Ness Avenue 

Jte 240 

3n Francisco. CA 

4102 

115)554-9671 
115) 621-3868 FAX 



IAYOR 

ank M. Jordan 




i 



^AGENDA 

,^bONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE 

SAN FRANCISCO^ART COMMISSION 

hP\UL\A, 1993 

1 : (TO—A-r+h — — Ir2+Q0 NOON 

25 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 70 



APR 15 1993 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



COMMISSIONERS 
me H»ofy 

esldent 

>hn Kilken 
ce PieskJent 

srnon Alley 
ancy Boas 
anley Elchelbaum 
anlel Genera 
abert F. LaRocca 
enny Llm 
3l Y. Okamoto 
odle Rosekrans 
jibata Sklar 



I. Bond Issue Report 

- If necessary, motion to be considered to amend amount 
in bond issue request. 

II. Review of Assessment Feedback and Recommendation for 
Plann i ng 

- Working session with Louise Stevens of ArtsMarket 
Consulting, Inc. 



* OFFICIO MEMBERS 
esldents ot the 
ie Arts Museums 
srary Commission, 
annlng Commission, 
ideation and Park 
ommlsslon 



RECTOR OF 
UlTURAl AFFAIRS 
>anne Chow Wlnshlp 



tOGRAMS 
IHouse 

vie Art Collection 
vie Design Review 
Dmmunlty Arts 
ind Education 
)PS Conceits 
ibllc ArtPiogram 



eel Artists Licenses 
lie 70 
15)554-9677 



3llery 

5 Grove Sheet 

15)554-9682 




City and County 
of San Fianclsco 




25 Van Ness Avenue 

Suite 240 

San Fianchco, CA 

94102 

(415)554 9671 
(415) 621-3868 FAX 



SAN FRANCISCO ART COMMISSION 
ACCESSIBLE MEETING POLICY 

1. Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee 
Meetings of the Art Commission will be held at 26 Van Ness 
Avenue, Suite 70, San Francisco, CA . Twenty Five Van Ness 
is located on the corner of Oak and Van Ness. Suite 70, 
basement level, can be accessed by the two main elevators in 
the lobby of the building. 



PROGRAMS 
CMc Ait Collection 
Civic Design Review 
Cornrnifilty Aits 
and Education 
POPS Concert! 
Public Ait Piograrn 



Street Artists licenses: 
Suite 70 
(415)554-9677 



Gallery 

155 Grove Street 

(415)554-9682 



2. The closest accessible BART Station is the Civic Center 
Station located at the intersection of Market, Hyde and 
Grove Street. Accessible MUNI Metro lines serving this 
location are the J,K,L,M, and N which stop at Van Ness 
Avenue and Market Street, one-half block from the Art 
Commission offices. Accessible MUNI lines serving the 
corner of Van Ness and Market are 9 ,26, and 42. for more 
information regarding MUNI accessible services, please call 
(415) 923-6142. 

3. American sign language interpreters and/or a sound 
enhancement system will be available upon request at 
meetings. Please contact Sonia Gray in the Community Arts 
and Education Program at (415) 554-9671 at least 72 hours 
prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored iff 
possible . 



Art House 

Fort Mason Center 

Building C 

Son Francisco, CA 

94123-1382 

(415)885-1194 



4. To allow individuals with environmental illness or 
multiple chemical sensitivity to attend any meetings, 
individuals are requested to refrain from wearing perfume or 
other scented products. 

5. Accessible curbside parking has been designated on Oak 
Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street. 




6. Accessible seating for persons with disabilities 
(including those UBing wheelchairs) will be available. 






DOCUMFMts OFPT. 

APR 1 5 1993 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Draft r«^ f fb 

San Francisco Art Commission 

Assessment Feedback /\10 • ^ ^ 

and ^ 

Recommendations for Planning qj. nL -» 



Prepared by: 
ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 



April 1993 



City and County of San Francisco 
The Art Commission of San Francisco 



Commissioners 



Anne Healy, President 
John Kriken, Vice President 
Nancy Bechtel 
Aristides Demetrios 
Alzonzo King 
Willis Kirk 
Robert F. LaRocca 
Genny Lim 
Rai Y Okamoto 
Dodie Rosekrans 
Terri Simon 
Liza Zenni 

Director of Cultural Affairs 

Joanne Chow Winship 



This report is organized as follows: 

■ Detailed findings and recommendations concerning programs and 
services; 

■ Findings and recommendations concerning policies, governance, 
structure and operations; 

■ Recommendations for potential goals and objectives for the agency 
plan. 

Using this Report In Planning 

This report is presented as an internal, working document to be used by the Com- 
mission in shaping its strategic plan. We have synthesized considerable input and 
commentary and used verbatim quotes as appropriate (without direct attribution). 
The recommendations are presented as a starting point and focus for decision-mak- 
ing. As appropriate, we will develop subsequent memos and recommendations, con- 
tinuing to draw on the assessment findings. 

Working with this information and these recommendations, the consultant team 
will next help the agency shape responses: mission, philosophy, goals and objectives. 
Choices will need to be made: It will not be possible to undertake all that those inter- 
viewed would like the agency to do. Preliminary goals and objectives will be tested 
with the community, through continued meetings. The process of planning should 
be viewed as an opportunity for continued input and dialogue. 

The members of the consulting team would like to thank the Commission mem- 
bers and staff who generously gave of their time for the interviews and for organizing 
the focus groups and outside interviews. People spoke candidly and honestly, with 
the desire to see this plan strengthen and focus the Commission for the future. We 
hope that we have captured the spirit of their input in a constructive, useful way. 



INTRODUCTION 



INTRODUCTION 



MWMWWHHWW WMMMMtMWMOOO OWWWWMMWWMWOMWMWWWWM 



This report is a summary of findings and recommendations from the first phase 
of consultant long-range planning work with the San Francisco Art Commission. Be- 
ginning in late November 1992 and continuing through March 1993, members of the 
ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. team conducted assessment work designed to offer a 
wealth of information that the Commission could utilize in planning. Included in the 
work were: 

• On-site meetings and interviews with Commissioners, staff members. 

• On-site meetings with government agency representatives and others from the funding 
and civic sectors. 

• A series of nine focus groups, with participants recruited according to their 
perspective: community organizations, cultural centers, arts organizations, street 
artists, individual artists, architects, government employees, funders. 

• Telephone interviews with various arts and civic leaders. 

• Review of extensive documentation concerning the Commission history, programs, 
policies. 

• Secondary research concerning models that might be applicable to the Commission. 

A listing of interview participants is included in the addendum to this report. 

Early in the project, a member of the consulting team met with Commissioners 
and staff to develop a series of research topics. Our subsequent research focused on 
these topics, as interviewees and focus group participants offered insight for agency 
change and growth in the various topic areas. The questions, included as an adden- 
dum to the report, addressed topics of pro-active/re-active, regulatory or "encourage- 
ment" roles; balancing charter mandates with new needs; relationship with other 
City departments; grantmaking, facilitation, and other roles to the arts community; 
development of public interest in the arts; and a range of questions rela'ive to spe- 
cific initiatives or programs. These are responded to with the commentary and feed- 
back, and consultant recommendations, and will continue to be addressed through 
upcoming planning meetings. 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 



Part 1 : Executive Summary of Findings and 
Recommendations 

iv^^l^.•.^^ - l W^f Jy*fafaw^w^MraMM*w^WM^*^* '^^ ^ fl^l^ft*r^^ l^^^^lM ^ ■l lrt1«f¥l ll■ v^^^-n1 l 1 -n --n- mi l *rnrtri i i i rrmrTr rr rrri'iiirn WW WWW— 



I 1. Mission, Philosophy 

It is time for the Commission to develop a new mission statement and vision, and 
to support these with a new set of program and service priorities. The current mis- 
sion statement is considered to be too broad and vague to be useful: Most people 
outside of the agency feel that there is no real mission or focus. 

"The Commission is working with antiquated ordinance ideas. What was rele- 
vant in 1932 isn't any more. It is time for a serious new look at what a Commis- 
sion should be." 

The opportunity for the Commission, today and into the future, is for it to be fu- 
ture-thinking, visionary, and bold. The agency appears to many to have been con- 
sumed, over the years, by its regulatory functions. While there is a role here, and a 
need to maintain those regulatory responsibilities, there is a great need and opportu- 
nity for leadership in addressing current needs. The key roles: an advocate, cham- 
pion, leader for the arts. 

"The Commission needs to be visionary, to be the leader, to give arts in this City 
a champion." 

Some translate this into having the Commission be a "full" local arts agency. 

"77»ty agency needs to develop and further policies and initiatives that benefit all 
of the arts, that are undertaken on behalf of all of the arts, as a full local arts 
agency." 

The current mission needs to be changed to be more direct and succinct. 

The current statement reads as follows: "The Art Commission is mandated by the 
City and County of San Francisco to ensure that the arts comprise a key element of the 
City's cultural, social and economic well being. The Commission initiates, cultivates, 
advocates and protects arts-related services and programs to preserve, present, innovate 
and educate to achieve artistic growth, community awareness and experience of the arts 
for residents and visitors alike." 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 



The biggest problems with this statement are that it doesn't clearly define the 
Commission's constituency or constituencies, and that it suggests such a broad func- 
tion that priorities are difficult to establish. 

To philosophically support a changed mission statement, the Charter of the Com- 
mission should be revised. The Charter currently focuses (point 3.601) largely on ap- 
proval of works of art, and supervision and control of expenditures for music and art. 
This is only a portion of the current and needed responsibilities. The limitations of 
the Charter language hold key programs and services back and hamper the agency's 
ability to effectively meet contemporary needs. In addition, the focus on music and 
visual art — though softened through the diverse membership of the Commission, 
which includes representatives from all arts disciplines — philosophically hampers 
the agency's real or perceived ability to lead and serve all of the arts. 



2. Expanded Scope of Work: Affirming New Directions 

Areas not addressed by the Charter and only vaguely addressed through the mis- 
sion statement, that are of top priority for the Commission now and for the future, 
are: arts in education; audience development/building public appreciation for the 
arts; advocacy and championing of the arts; stabilizing and strengthening the arts. 
These are in addition to the charter-mandated areas of approving works of art and 
controlling expenditures for music and art. The Art Commission has developed won- 
derful initiatives and programs in many of these areas, and needs to build on these, 
both to take a lead and fill a void. People in the arts, in municipal government, the 
funding community and education are looking to the Commission to be a leader, to 
articulate a vision that addresses these as priorities. 

" Why can 't San Francisco have the best local arts agency, with the most com- 
prehensive programs, of any city in America? Why can 't the Commission be 
that agency?" 

The priorities for the future, defined through this study, are as follows. They 
should be an overlay on the existing Charter responsibilities, and considered equally 
as important as the historical functions: 

a Arts in Education: being the coordinating, clearinghouse agency; 
articulating a plan and policy for arts in education in San 
Francisco schools and throughout the community, linked to 
community centers, after-school programs and lifelong learning; 
building public understanding and value for arts in education; 



Part 1: Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations 



facilitating partnerships between cultural organizations and 
schools. 

a Audience Development: leading the way in building audiences for 
the work of San Francisco artists and arts organizations; through 
marketing and audience development activities, programming and 
services to the arts community; building public awareness and 
understanding of San Francisco cultural treasures; increasing 
public participation. 

a Advocacy: being the voice for arts development throughout the 
City and County; building public support for the arts. 

o Funding: stabilizing and strengthening the arts in San Francisco 
through securing new sources of funds that will further the above 
three points and that will offer new opportunities and incentives 
to artists and arts organizations. 



I 3. Streamlining Existing Charter Functions 

As stated earlier, people within and outside of the agency feel that it has become 
too focused on its regulatory functions over the years, at the expense of new program 
exploration and development. People perceive that many procedures have become 
unwieldy, and feel that the layers of approval and regulation impede the agency's 
ability to provide overall effective leadership for the arts. There is a need to re-ex- 
amine the Committee approval roles and approaches, and the approvals that are 
done in partnership with other municipal agencies, so as to win the confidence and 
support of the arts and the full community. 

In addition, the Commission's various programs have each grown with little con- 
nection or linkage to each other: The various functions are viewed by staff and by 
outsiders to the agency almost as stand-alone programs. People tend to interface 
with the agency, as a result, only related to a particular program. The over-all ability 
of the Commission to serve and strengthen the arts community is fragmented. 

Through this plan, new linkages need to be made between existing (and new) 
programs. They need to be linked conceptually, as will be described, based on broad 
philosophical goals: audience development; arts support. Programs such as the Gal- 
lery and Street Artists Licensing need to be linked. Public Art n* ~ds to be linked to 
both of these, and to other services to artists. The Pops, if contini sed needs to be 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 



linked to other audience development functions such as arts in education and the 
Community Cultural Centers: All should be viewed as pieces of the continuum 
rather than as totally separate functions. 

This will help build a sense of team, create a more workable administrative and 
governance structure, will enable the Commission to do more in affecting broad pol- 
icy for the arts in San Francisco, and will help the public to understand and see the 
"full" Commission. 



I 4. Re-structuring Decision-Making and Operations 

If the agency is to truly incorporate arts in education, audience development and 
community arts support as ongoing priority functions, it needs to reflect this in its or- 
ganizational and committee structure. A new approach to committees needs to be 
considered — more advisory groups that can be modeled after the Gallery advisory 
board, that can expand the overall advisory input available and reduce the pressure 
on Commission members. These diverse function areas also suggest a broadening of 
the Commission composition to particularly include representatives with expertise 
in education, audience development, and funding. 

Staff structure, too, needs to be examined to allow the organization to work effec- 
tively as a team in all priority areas. Areas that need to be formalized are marketing 
— now done piecemeal by each program — and fundraising. The new structure needs 
to facilitate excellent communications and partnership between all staffing areas, so 
that individual programs don't "spin on their own orbit," but work towards common 
goals. 



6 Part 1: Executive Summery of Findings end Recommendation* 



Part 2: Findings and Recommendations 



w< » i«j»a& t 6& » »ai MM 



The findings from this study are presented by topics, sometimes specific to exist- 
ing programs and other times more broadly stated. The intent of the assessment was 
not so much to critique existing programs, but to provide fresh perspective and infor- 
mation that will spark planning and new thinking concerning programs and services. 



The Art Commission's Local Arts Agency Role: 
Visionary and Future-Oriented 

The San Francisco Art Commission has tremendous opportunity to transform it- 
self into a vibrant, future-looking agency. The overwhelming majority of individuals 
interviewed for this assessment feel that the agency can be a pro-active organization 
with a fresh vision, mission, and set of priorities. People strongly feel that the 
Commission's regulatory functions need to be balanced with a range of local arts 
agency services and programs that will make it the leader, catalyst, and champion for 
cultural development throughout San Francisco. 



1. The Agency needs to change its mission and goals to meet contemporary advo- 
cacy needs, rather than the "historical needs" of 1932. 

"The current mission statement is passive — a caretaker role. The Commission 
needs to become the central communicator for all the arts in San Francisco." 

"Focus on the financial survival of arts organizations... promote audience devel- 
opment in diverse commun'Uies...build linkages with the business community to 
develop ongoing long-term base of support'' 

"One of the problems with the agency is that it doesn 't have a very clear mis- 
sion." 

"The mission of the Art Commission should be to provide focus and leadership 
in the arts." 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 



'Re-dream the system...start over...re-visit the mission. Address today's big 
needs and challenges. ' 

'Use RAVE as a model be communicators...mobilizers...coordirujtors...provid- 
ers of action.' 

'Be militant about representing the arts community in all of City government' 



2. This planning process should be used as the time to develop a completely 
fresh perspective as to the Art Commission role and potential. The Charter man- 
dates are narrow, and don't reflect contemporary San Francisco needs or offer a 
vision for the future. Also, much has grown ad hoc, so that there is an imbalance 
between "charter-mandated" (largely ordinance-based and regulatory) and "dis- 
cretionary.'* The priority must be to define the full extent of the Commission role 
for the future and articulate this in additions and revisions to the Charter. 

'I don't think there is a given role for the Commission other than the historical 
What was invented in 1932 isn't appropriate today. Start from scratch. Come 
up with a rationale and structure.' 

'We hang onto programs because of inertia. It takes a lot of guts to drop things. 
Are these programs that we should clearly be doing?" 

"Clarify the charter functions of the Art Commission for today and give priority 
to addressing these tasks -- don 'ttry to do everything for everybody. ' 

'Analyze each program sponsored by the Art Commission - examine the as- 
sumptions, review the activities, assess the impacts - and then determine if it is 
appropriate to have the service delivered in other ways. The Art Commission 
needs to get out of the program delivery business and to have a more visionary 
and catalytic role.* 

'Don V be locked into the old way of doing things. ' 

'Don 'tbea program implementor...be a program facilitatoc* 



3. The Commission is the agency to maintain a clear vision and coherent arts pol- 
icy for the City. (Even though the Arts Policy was created in 1991, there is a 
sense still of no municipal arts focus or priority.) 

'Why not have this be America's greatest local arts agencyT 

'Think big. Develop a broad, far-reaching international vision for the arts* 



Part 2: Findings a no ^commendations 



"There is an appalling lack of vision about the arts." 

"We need new thinking and a new vision for the arts. " 

"It seems as if the Art Commission is involved in so many things that it doesn't 
have time for vision. " 

"There is no clear arts policy in the City..defining, for example, how art fits into 
the fabric of the City and how it should meet the needs of the entire community." 

"flinders get involved in arts planning to fill a void left by the Art Commission. * 



4. People feel that the Art Commission has never been able to affect enough arts 
policy development for the City, but that this is a critical role to be undertaken, 
primarily through direction set forth in the agency plan and through changes to 
the Charter. They feel that the agency must create a policy role for itself and en- 
force this by being the convener, the leader, the communicator. 

"The Art Commission is the step child: It never had power in arts policy — it 
didn't have the dollars." 

"The Art Commission hasn't been a major player -- it offers a 'soft service.' If it 
is going to become an essential service, especially in tough budget times, it has 
to take people through an educational process, that art is essential Many de- 
partments don't feel that way. It has to send information constantly to all de- 
partment heads relative to events, get to know other department people, become 
critical to others." 



5. People feel there are not as many public agencies involved in the arts as might 
at first appear, and that those that do work in the arts should be more actively 
brought together. There is a void in regular communications, and in the facilita- 
tion of ongoing discussion concerning shared policy needs, and in planning be- 
tween various City departments. In this, the Commission is seen as being able to 
play the leadership role: To facilitate regular meetings of a Council or gathering 
of agency leaders. The need for leadership is strong, and the Commission has 
the opportunity to act. 

"The idea of a cultural council is good - a forum for all of the City's arts agen- 
cies to meet two times a year. If the focus could appeal to our common interests 
for example, how can we get more NEA or Federal or State money into the City, 
advocacy, audience development, or bone issues, it would work better than past 
efforts." 

"Bring people together on a regular basis to network about critical issues." 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 



*Be a catalyst that brings agencies together to promote the arts, coordinate pro- 
grams, share resources, and better serve the community.* 

'Form an incubator for people to come together to share what they know and 
solve problems.* 

* Actually, there are only about six or seven agencies that play a major role - the 
Art Commission, Hotel Tax, War Memorial, Museums, Parks and Recreation 
and Planning We should be able to bring these agencies together to at least 
share information * 



6. The Commission should be "the voice for the Arts" in San Francisco. The 
Commission is considered the natural organization to be the advocate for the arts 
to all other agencies and departments of City government The fragmentation of 
City arts agencies and initiatives means that there is no single voice. Artists and 
organizations of all sizes, as well as those involved in arts in education and 
broadly defined community cultural development need to know that they have a 
champion and representative. Even though the Commission has historically not 
been seen as the "voice" for the major institutions, these organizations also need 
and seek a strong representative. 

*We need an advocate for all of the City's arts initiatives and interests. This is a 
key role for the Commission.' 

*The Commission should be 'making the case' for the arts - play up Arts in Ed- 
ucation, arts partnership with social services, working with the City's redevelop- 
ment agency, working on children 's and teens cultural center in Yerba Buena — 
help all other arts initiatives and projects.* 

'Saving our arts institutions - building public awareness of how valuable they 
are to San Francisco - this should be the job of the Commission.* 

It is important to note that a few individuals, however, feel the agency should 
continue to do those things that it has historically done, rather than change or ex- 
pand. 

'The agency should lead from its strength. Build on the programs with the long- 
est track record — art in public places, the things that the citizens should feel it's 
supposed to do. Pops concerts, art in public places, design review, the City's art 
collection, conservation function: This is what should be preserved. It is good 
government to cover the things that you are expected to do first If they narrowly 
defined mission, that would make them more valuable. * 



10 Part 2: Findings and Recommendations 



7. Planning for cultural development should become an ongoing function for the 
Art Commission. Convening, facilitating, and maintaining a process for dialogue 
is considered to be important, particularly at the neighborhood, grass-roots level. 
The desire is for the Commission to find out what is going on in the neighbor- 
hoods, then develop relevant strategies to help address these needs, while at the 
same time promoting self-empowerment in the community. There is a sense that 
this ongoing planning must be based on a strong commitment to address the 
needs of under-served communities. 



"The key to planning is setting up a process where communities have a major 
role in defining their needs and the types of programs to address them...the pro- 
cess should recognize that each community has its own way of doing things. " 

"Get input from neighborhood and community groups about their funding and 
service coordination needs." 

"Institutions like the Art Commission need to gather input by holding meetings 
in the community." 

"The Commission cannot assume that by funding some organizations that repre- 
sent certain constituents that the Commission has addressed the total needs of 
those constituencies. It needs to reach out to these target groups in an ongoing 
way." 



8. Current perceptions within and outside of the agency need to be changed 
through the process of setting a new vision, through team-building, and through 
more active communications and publicity. 



Wo one else cares. Most people don 't know what the Art Commission does 
and are surprised at the breadth and depth of projects." 



9. Misconceptions need to be addressed through communications and clearly de- 
fined priorities. Despite constant efforts made by the Commission to be inclusive 
and responsible to the diversity of San Francisco citizens, there is a lingering per- 
ception that the organization is elitist and oriented towards a small group of peo- 
ple. 



"The Art Commission does not have a broad vision of the arts" 

"The Art Commission's philosophy of art is differenLJt does not focus on the 
grassroots." 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 



11 



10. lb build a stronger presence and a clear understanding of its commitment to 
the community, the Commission needs to spend more time getting out into the 
community, promoting and holding its meetings in different locations throughout 
the community. 

'The Art Commission should bring Us Commission meetings to the people. 
They should not just hold meetings in the basement of their building but take 
the meetings to various places around the City -from neighborhoods to muse- 
ums. This would be a good way to get the arts community to know the Commis- 
sion." 

"It is important to consult with the community about art programs and respond 
to the stated needs.' 



11. The Commission needs to clearly communicate the nature of its Commis- 
sion representation and its programs so that people understand that it addresses a 
variety of needs and art forms. There currently isn't clarity as to the Commission- 
ers and their roles. 



'The Commissioners are all architects. They have expertise in those areas. 
That's who they are and where they are in the City.' 

Tve never understood what the Art Commission did other than manage the 
Public Art Program. ' 



12. As will be stated throughout this report, the regulatory processes have be- 
come so bureaucratic through the years as to make the agency seem impenetrable 
and difficult to deal with. The regulatory processes are perceived as barriers to 
artists and to the community. Concerted effort needs to be made to simplify and 
streamline, to break down some of the layers of hearings, meetings, and review. 

'Simplify the regulatory process... it's too complicated.' 

"So much of what the agency does now is regulatory, there isn 't time to do any- 
thing constructive in terms of future planning. And that's what the perception is, 
too, that it exists to regulate, not lead. " 



12 



Part 2: Findings and Recommendations 



13. The Commission's focus on design review, the Gallery, public art and street 
art gives it a strong orientation to the visual arts. It is not perceived as offering 
anything useful to the performing arts, with the exception of the Pops. Perform- 
ing arts organizations need a way to interface with and work with the agency. 

'The Art Commission for the performing arts is a joke. It doesn If do anything 
for performing arts organizations except the symphony." 



PROGRAMS AND SERVICES 



Gallery 



The Gallery is viewed by many as offering valuable services and is credited by art- 
ists as being important and successful: People greatly appreciate its work over the 
last five years. 

'Other galleries in the City serve special cliques but not the San Francisco Art 
Commission Gallery" 

"Hove the programming at the Gallery over the last five years... the diversity.. .the 
range of programs." 



1. Reaffirm the important role of the Gallery in providing a venue for all artists, 
as well as emerging artists, but develop new ways of communicating and present- 
ing the idea of "emerging" artists. Utilize the Gallery for more han the visual 
arts. Link the Gallery to arts in education. 

"Young artists need to be pushed and one way is to bring people to see their 
work." 

'The Gallery is a critical venue for artists that aren't being shown elsewhere." 

"The Commission only cares about the visual arts. It doesn V have any meaning 
to artists working in other disciplines." 

"The Gallery should be a center of activity that meets many needs." 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 13 



2. Use the Gallery as an audience development venue, as well as a service to art- 
ists. The Gallery space is perceived to offer many opportunities to build interest 
in all of the Gty's arts. It can be developed as a focal point - the place to go to 
for information on the City's arts and culture, the home of constant shows and ex- 
hibits by new and interesting artists as well as exhibitions representing San Fran- 
cisco collections. It can also be the home base for Gallery programs that go out 
into the neighborhoods. 

"Have private collectors put their work at the Gallery to attract visitors when the 
displays don H attract many people. * 

'Take the Gallery to people, not just people to the Gallery.* -e.g. use of vans. 

This builds on the study done by consultant Sherry Wagner in 1992: That report 
recommended that the Gallery could be an information center for artists, and a desti- 
nation for information on the arts for the public. "Be careful to offer something the 
audience cannot get elsewhere." The report also stressed linking the space to the 
promotion of local artists, and suggests that the term "gallery" may be conceptually 
limiting as to program possibilities. 

As this study will show, audience development is considered to be a top priority 
and opportunity for the Commission: Using the Gallery as a focal point for dissemi- 
nating information on all of the City's arts and cultural organizations; artists, galler- 
ies and studios; programs and neighborhood activities would make it a destination 
for residents and visitors. 

Another need that the Gallery could meet is discussed later in this report under 
Arts in Education: The need for a resource and research center for arts in educa- 
tion, as a destination for arts educators, artists and arts organization education spe- 
cialists from throughout the City. 

The Wagner report supports these concepts: She stressed that the Gallery needs 
a new, clear mission and needs to go beyond the concept of serving "emerging art- 
ists." The report also recommends: "Recognize the relationship of the Gallery space 
as a program of the Art Commission. It is the public presentation of the Art Com- 
mission and should reflect the Art Commission's mission in supporting art and art- 
ists." To build on her concept: The Gallery should be a hub of activity that is meshed 
with all of the Commission's initiatives and program/service areas. 



14 Part 2: Finding* and Recommendation* 



3. Some feel that the Gallery as currently programmed isn't necessary, that it is 
redundant. To ensure that it is not, the Gallery mission should be expanded to in- 
clude a range of arts discipline programs and services. 

"/ don 't thing the money spent on the Gallery (and on festivals) is money well 
spent Why are they doing a gallery? That is a duplication of effort. The Yerba 
Buena and the many artist galleries and cooperatives fulfill this role. They 
should be in the business of building audiences for others, instead.* 



4. The governance of the Gallery is at once a good model for the rest of the 
agency, and also is in need of fine-tuning. The Advisory Board is a valuable 
group and structural model, to give input and guidance. But to do this effectively, 
it needs additions to its governance statements (dated June 1988), with greater de- 
lineation of tasks and responsibilities. There is currently a Curatorial Commit- 
tee: In addition committees need to be established in marketing/aud ; ence 
development and potentially in artists services (incorporating the slide registry, 
management services, and potential additional services.) The relationship with 
the Art Commission board needs to be clarified, to allow for maximum communi- 
cation and partnership without creating another layer of bureaucracy. 



"Have members of the Visual Arts Committee join the Gallery Advisory Board 
when art projects are reviewed, or find some other way to address communica- 
tions and control Every exhibition shouldn't have to go through layers of ap- 
proval* 

Currently, exhibition programming is generated by the staff and the Curatorial 
Committee of the Advisory Board, then must be approved by the Visual Arts and the 
Finance Committees, and finally by the Commission as a whole. This means that 
there are four layers of decision-making beyond the staff for every exhibition. This 
could be simplified by requiring the Advisory Board to work within annual budgets 
(eliminating exhibition-by-exhibition review by the Finance Committee), and by hav- 
ing a Commission member site on the Curatorial Committee, so that approval re- 
quests could go directly to the Commission. 

Also stated in the Wagner Report: The Advisory board should be culturally inclu- 
sive and expanded to allow for committees that can advise in specific areas. There 
should be regular training for advisory board members, and board guidebooks just as 
would be given to a standing non-profit board. 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 



15 



15. The Gallery should be utilized to offer opportunities to the Commission for 
earned income and contributions. 

If the Gallery becomes a more broadly defined focus for audience development, 
it could offer the Commission a venue for revenue. 

— As an audience development and Information resource, It could charge for 
services, offer memberships or sell passes and tickets to cultural activities. 

— It could develop a "Support San Frandsco Art" membership group to provide 
contributions and opportunities for fundraislng events. 

— It could become a 501 (c)3 structure linked to the Commission to allow for 
private sector fundraislng. 

More and more public sector local arts agencies and commissions are adopting 
and reshaping 501(c)3 foundations or "friends" organizations for fundraising. As this 
report will show, we recommend that the Commission consider a range of new reve- 
nue approaches: A Gallery-based support organization is one of these. It should be 
broadly-based to go beyond the support of actual Gallery programs, to seek revenue 
and support for conservation of the City's art collection (something desperately 
needed to allow for continued collection management and maintenance). 

If the Gallery becomes a resource center for arts in education, the Gallery-based 
501(c)3 could also allow for fundraising linked to City-wide AiE planning and ser- 
vices (see AiE section, Page 18). 

Finally, the Gallery could provide earned income, not only through rentals, but 
through merchandising. This is a new revenue stream being considered by local arts 
agencies, linked to marketing and audience development. If the Gallery became a 
focal point for arts and cultural marketing (information on all arts events in the City, 
starting point for cultural tourism), it could sell a range of items promoting arts in 
San Francisco. 



6. The range of opportunities for the Gallery suggest that the Gallery staff re- 
sponsibilities need to continue to expand beyond a curatorial focus. 



16 Part 2: Findings and Recommendations 



Individual Artists: Grants and Relationships with the Commission 

The Commission is known for its ability to work with individual artists, for the 
range of programs and services it offers to artists. It fulfills many needs, and has the 
opportunity to continue to assist artists in many ways. The problems it currently 
faces in these areas can largely be addressed through effective communications and 
more "user-friendly" systems. 



1. Individual artists are sensitive to the way they are treated by the Commission. 
There is a perception that the Commission doesn't respect artists or want to work 
on their behalf. The biggest issue here is the processing of paperwork and pay- 
ments. Effort needs to be made to become far more "user friendly." 

"/ want respecL.Jo be informed—to be well paid... to get my check on time.. .to be 
a stakeholder, not an employee.' 

"It makes me feel like they think rm a second<lass citizen.* 



2. Artists would like to see the Commission expand its support network for indi- 
vidual artists through offering (or making the connections to) diverse funding op- 
portunities that work to build professional expertise and standing for artists. This 
concept should be studied as it could potentially link the Street Artists Licensing 
Program and Gallery as parts of a continuum of professional development ser- 
vices to artists. 

"The Commission needs more funding mechanisms to support individual c/'ists 
—fellowships, apprenticeships, residencies, internships, joint programs...'" 

'Being an artist can be a desperate way to make a living. * 

'Foster and support artists as business people. * 

Recommendations offered by participants in this study include: 

— Assist artists to acquire insurances through City-sponsored programs. 

— Assist artists with loan package development. 

— Provide a range of awards and incenUves for artists at different states of 
professional development 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 17 



'Let City and County officials know that artists are small businesses, not volun- 
teer victims or charity recipients. " 

"Offer incentives for local businesses to support the arts." 



3. Information and communication is an important service for San Francisco's 
community of artists. Again, the Gallery could be a focus here. In addition, these 
needs are related to the need for a comprehensive approach to marketing and in- 
formation dissemination. Artists who participated in the study stated the follow- 
ing needs to be met: 

— Provide Information to artists In a variety of ways - I.e. newsletter, ads in 
community-based newspapers. 

— Publish an inexpensive handbook of services provided by the Art Commission. 

— Foster collaboration through communication. 

"We need a multi-ethnic information bank for the arts with wide dissemination." 



4. In addition to the type of direct support stated above, artists would like the 
Commission to be their advocate, to represent their perspective and voice. 

"Help advocate for the appointment of individual artists to various boards and 
commissions." 

"Appoint individual artists to the Art Commission." 



ArtHouse 



1. ArtHouse is an extremely valuable service for those who know it and use it, 
but it would benefit from additional marketing and communication so that the 
community of artists in San Francisco is fully aware of the resources it offers. 
Many artists still request something that is like ArtHouse, without knowing that it 
already exists. 

"We need volunteer services and technical assistance." 



18 



Part 2: Findings and Reco: miend itlona 



2. The administration of ArtHouse, currently split between the Commission and 
CLA, creates another layer of bureaucracy. The staff must report to two different 
organizations, follow two sets of policies and procedures. ArtHouse has the po- 
tential to grow significantly, and should be encouraged to spin-off into a free 
standing organization within a set timeframe. 

Arts In Education 

Arts in education was offered as a major interest of the Commission at the start 
of this project. The opportunity for the Commission to expand its emphasis in this 
area was supported throughout the research: there is a role to fill, and a desire for 
the Commission to create a major presence as the coordinating municipal organiza- 
tion for AiE. Nearly all participants in this study articulated arts in education as one 
of the two top priorities (along with audience development) for the future of the arts 
in San Francisco. 

'Define arts education as the primary function of the Art Commission' 



1. Expand the Commission role in arts in education policy development and 
planning. Many cities are now developing collaborative arts in education 
masterplans: Chicago, Fort Lauderdale, Cleveland, Richmond and others are 
working on significant collaborative strategies that involve public and private sec- 
tor; artists and arts organizations; school administrations and educators; funders 
and parents. Participants in this study see a need for the Commission to take on 
such a planning process. 

'We need a masterplan for A iE. No one now is taking on the responsibility * 

'Establish a school policy mandating art training for all students, K-12. ' 

'Educate principals and teachers about arts in education through some form of 
planning.' 

"The Commission needs to be the pro-active planner; evaluator. It needs to mea- 
sure impact: What can we in the City do in the next five years? What is the five- 
year projection ? We can 't just wait for crisis. ' 

'It needs to facilitate the dialogue." 

"The Commission needs to educate funders concerning arts in education* 



ArtsMarfcet Consulting, Inc. 19 



2. The Commission should provide effective coordination between the many 
agencies and organizations involved with arts in education in San Francisco. It 
should become the umbrella agency for Arts Providers. 

"Arts Providers needs a budget and direction. There isn H a point person for this. ' 
"The Commission needs to connect the dots.' 
'Sponsor the Art Providers organization. ' 
'Focus on coordination, not duplication.' 



3. Arts organizations would like the Commission to be an advocate, through the 
role of coordinator and umbrella for arts in education initiatives throughout the 
City. Artists and organization administrators alike would like it to press for arts 
in education to the school board and to other civic agencies and funders. 

'The biggest problem facing arts in education done by all the organizations in 
San Francisco is getting support from the school systems. There is no one group 
doing advocacy. The Art Commission is in a prime spot to do this, to unify and 
promote.' 

'When my agency goes to the School Board we are viewed as self-serving be- 
cause it only helps our institutions. The Commission is in a position to do this 
for the entire arts community - they can speak for the whole.' 



4. As the coordinating agency (and potential umbrella for Arts Providers), many 
would like the Commission to form a coordinated delivery system of services for 
the entire community. There is strong desire for it to fulfill this role. 

'Be a broken advocate, and clearinghouse.' 

'Bring key players together and clarify roles.' 

'Build strong linkages with other agencies.' 

'Build a solid working relationship with the Center for Collaborative Change.' 

'Sponsor networking/information-sharing activities for artists' 



20 Part 2: Findings and Recommendations 



5. Linked to the need for coordination is the need for a central source of infor- 
mation and research. This is another key opportunity area for the Commission, 
and one that should be pursued. In this way, the Commission could replicate the 
new national model being developed at the Kennedy Center. 

"Conduct research and evaluation, and disseminate the findings.* 

"Develop a resource department with national, regional and local information 
about arts education.* 

"Identify what works and disseminate the information.* 

"Coordinate and develop teacher training programs and partnerships between 
teachers and artists. * 



6. The Art Commission can bring to its coordination, information, planning and 
other services a focus on diversity that may be lacking from the arts in education 
programs offered by some of the City's arts organizations. 

"The Commission needs to ensure that arts education is done with a multi-cul- 
tural perspective. 



7. There is community support for the types of opportunities currently made pos- 
sible by the Commission through its arts education grants. Whether through 
granting, or through coordination, many would like to see the agency expand its 
support of partnerships and programs that link students with artists and cultural 
organizations, with the Recreation Department and others. 

"Train high school students to be docents." 

"Develop exchange programs with various sites." 

"Every child should be able to go around the comer and drop into an after- 
school program." 

"Coordinate with other agencies that offer programs for the targets groups, like 
the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco." 

"Establish apprenticeship programs." 

"Bring students to artists' studios.* 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 21 



Within the existing Arts Education Grants that focus on at-risk youth, study par- 
ticipants called for a broaden interpretation of "at risk." 

'Redefine the term 'at risk' ~ then are lots of other kids who have special needs.'' 

'Broaden the age range in the after-school program to include 3- 11 year olds. 
This kind of intergenerational program is where collaboration can really work.' 

'Target special populations but be flexible from year to year.* 



8. Some study participants recommended that the Commission should fill the 
void left when the California Arts Council dropped artist-in-residency programs. 

'We need new kinds of artists in residency programs — more cooperation and 
collaboration between the Art Commission and schools.' 

'Take over the AiR function, now that the California Arts Council has dropped 
it' 



Cultural Centers 

The Commission's relationship with the Cultural Centers has had a mixed track 
record, from strong partnership to the drop in CETA funding, to an arm's length re- 
lationship. The long history has created baggage that makes it difficult for people 
from the Cultural Center organizations to offer future-oriented commentary for the 
Commission. People remember how things were when there was more money, and 
feel as though they have been cut off. 



1. A new plan needs to be developed and a new concept thought through for the 
cultural centers and their organizations. This should be done through a mutual 
planning process between the Commission and the Centers, likely extending over 
the next year, to ensure mutual understanding and buy-in to solutions. 

*A new vision needs to be developed given the current resources.' 

Vm not sure what the purpose of the centers is. They are a venue for activities, 
but what need are we fulfilling? Is this the best way?' 



22 Part 2: Findings and Recommendations 



2. The Cultural Centers feel as though they receive too little from the Art Com- 
mission to undertake their programs and truly develop neighborhood arts pro- 
grams, despite the Commission's current grant programs. Indeed the current 
level of funding is too limited to meet the needs and the scale of programs that 
the Centers are offering. 

'I feel like Tm fighting the Art Commission to get things for the neighborhood. " 

'They give us just enough to keep us quiet" 

"Although they try to help us, it's only token support" 

"We need a new set ofmles to be partners with the Art Commission...it's not a 
fair partnership.* 



3. The Commission needs to continue to develop mechanisms that will help the 
Centers grow stronger as organizations. Center administrators, while seeking 
funding and support, desire to strengthen their own planning and organizations. 
In an expansion of the concept of technical assistance (building on the current 
technical assistance grant category offered to the Centers), the Centers would 
like the Commission to be an advocate on their behalf, to support them for 
Grants for the Arts, with seeking Prop J funds, and with other City agencies. This 
is an important task for the Commission to undertake, in helping to stabilize 
these organizations and match them with additional funding. And they would 
like the Commission to work with them to enable them to become more self-suffi- 
cient through supporting economic development projects, through long-range 
planning, and through marketing. They would also like the Commission to ex- 
plore long-term lease agreements with them as a way of helping them grow. This 
needs to be a priority consideration in any new planning undertaken by the Com- 
mission and the Centers. 



"The Cultural Centers themselves have to get stronger - there has got to be a 
way for them to become more aggressive." 

"Provide long-term leases for the Cultural Centers." 

"Support funding initiatives for the Centers." 



ArtsMar ket Consulting, Inc. 



23 



"Others can't do everything for us. ..we have to do some things for ourselves.' 
"Wliy couldn If these be spun-qffinto non-profit organizations. " 



4. Audience development is a shared need, one that many feel could effectively 
be addressed through collaboration. This may be an important build on current 
technical assistance and grant programs, and should be linked by the Commission 
to its overall marketing and audience development initiatives. This, far more 
than the Pops, provides a grass-roots venue for reaching and serving San 
Francisco's diverse neighborhoods. 

"We need to share the magtc.the talent in each of the Cultural Centers." 

"This is where the real audience is -- in the neighborhoods. We can do some 
things collaboratively, here, to build awareness and interest." 



5. There is strong support for the feasibility planning and proposed bond funding 
of the cultural center facilities. Feasibility planning needs to address long-term fa- 
cility needs as well as short-term requirements. Funding strategies beyond the 
bond issue need to be planned. A good approach may be the creation of a neigh- 
borhood "Cultural Center's Endowment." 

"Upkeep and bringing these buildings up to code is the most pressing need. " 
"Just getting things up to code — who knows what will need to be doner 
"These are San Francisco assets. The buildings can 't just fall apart again. " 



Marketing, Audience Development and Communication 

Along with arts in education, most study participants stated that the most import- 
ant need to be addressed, for the future of arts in San Francisco, is the development 
of audiences for artists and arts communities. 

"We have created the supply, but we haven 't concentrated on creating the de- 
mand. In the last 35 years, the emphasis has shifted. It was on building supply. 
Now it has to be on building demand. We must focus on the audience. Nation- 
ally and locally, audiences are down." 



24 Part 2: Finding* and Recommendations 



3. Expand marketing of the arts to include marketing of the Street Artists Pro- 
gram. Study participants recommended that this be viewed as an opportunity - a 
way of promoting the high quality of the licensed street artists and linking them to 
other arts activities and gallery exhibitions in the City. 

"For example, the new brochure has virtually nothing about street artists. * 

One artist suggested that a map should be produced identifying all of the street 
artists spaces (like the map published for the Market Street Art in Transit Program. 
Others suggested that the program be promoted in literature, the media and through 
hotels and businesses. 



4. Many feel that it is important to include marketing arts in education within 
the overall concept of marketing the arts. 

"The Art Commission needs to have a major role in promoting arts education." 

"The Commission needs to educate the media about the importance of arts edu- 
cation" 



5. The Commission needs to market its own services and programs so that more 
people know and understand its work. It has been like many local arts agencies 
and municipal departments in that it hasn't routinely built public awareness for its 
programs. Marketing needs to be directed at the public, the arts community, 
other agencies and organizations, and include the full range of tools: public rela- 
tions, communications, advertising, direct mail, etc. 

"The Art Commission rarefy communicates with other agencies and organiza- 
tions." 

"I don t get any mail from them. I don 't know why they haven 't done more. " 

"The Commission needs to put its best foot forward. It needs to become proac- 
tive, rather than apologetic, letting people know the good work it does supporting 
artists and providing services to the community." 



Civic Design Review 

This function of the Art Commission has consumed considerable time and effort, 
despite having no full-time staffing. It also has attracted considerable attention from 



26 Part 2: Finding* and Recommendations 



"The Commission has a reputation of being flaky. They need to do more work 
eariy on, rather than show up at the last minutes with wild ideas that are too late 
to implement. It drives people nuts and frustrates other department people. It is 
a staffing problem - they are so short staffed they don If have the time. But it 
brings complaints from elsewhere." 

"There should be joint meetings of the different regulatory bodies at the initial 
stages of large projects. " 

"Require all of the bodies to meet together to develop a consensus-otherwise, 
the public is the victim. It is very expensive and unfair." 



2. The Commission needs to find ways to ensure better communications, and to 
clearly state procedures and policies, for all the participating municipal agencies, 
developers, and artists to use. This is a specific point brought out by those work- 
ing on the airport public art. 

"If the Commission wants to have a better partnership with other City depart- 
ments, make it easier for us to work together. Make the public art process flow 
smoother. Develop a checklist of how to go through the process, especially for 
an outsider." 

"Identify the common interests among the key players and try to develop trust at 
the beginning of the project. " 

"Communication and understanding are everything. Regular communication 
makes a difference." 

"The point of conflict is who has the final say, the airport or the Art Commis- 
sion. The only way to resolve that is to get people who will work together. The 
current joint committees have improved communications, but have more to do. 
They haven't educated each other about different points of views." 



3. The biggest process issues are the time it takes to review and approve pro- 
jects, and bad budget mistakes for various projects. Many feel these can be ad- 
dressed through better collaborative planning and communication. 

"It is a slow moving bureaucracy. The entire process of selecting major works of 
public art needs to be looked at carefully." 

"Things have to stay within the budgets. There have to be ways to contain costs, 
to ensure that projects stay affordable." 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 29 



4. Some suggest that a good way to build consensus and shared commitment to 
the Art Enrichment Program would be to involve staff of other departments in 
planning and preparatioa 

"Use the staff of other departments more effectively in carrying out the Art En- 
richment Program. Have the staff from other departments hold a briefing con- 
ference for potential applicants prior to the selection of artists for a project. * 



5. Some feel that the selection process for artists needs to be examined and po- 
tentially changed. There is a concern that there are not clearly stated criteria for 
the selection of artists, and that there isn't a clear understanding of what projects 
are targeted towards Bay Area artists vs. artists from elsewhere. The recom- 
mended policies (draft 7/30/92) should be formalized. 

"Make the selection process more consultative and more criteria-based, less sub- 
jective." 

"There is lots of talent in the Bay Area. Use more local talent for commissions! 
It seems that they are always looking for national or internationally-known art- 
ists — always attention to the resume. " 

"What hasn't been resolved in the artist selection process is that public art is art 
for the public, not for the artist People who select the art need to understand 
public taste. What do people think of when they look at art? The committee 
needs to do more front end research. ' Too often it is the name and reputation 
of the artist, vs. how the public perceives it." 

"Why do they spend time going on a world-wide search for art, rather than use 
local artists?" 



6. The Commission needs to do more to prepare artists to be effective partners 
in working on public art projects. There is a sense that the Visual Arts Commit- 
tee also needs to have more knowledge about the technical requirements of the 
proposed projects so that they can do more to assist the artists in the screening 
process. 

"The Commission has a two-way responsibility: represent artists, yes, but also 
help inform the artists so that the projects are successful." 

"Artists would be provided with more specific guidance and criteria before being 
invited to participate in the Art Enrichment Program." 

"Involve artists in a project from the beginning." 



30 



Part 2: Findings and Recommendations 



'Provide artists with a checklist of the technical requirements for projects so that 
they don '( waste time. ' 

'Artists have very creative ideas but lack technical knowledge about projects.' 

"RFPs should include information about the technical requirements for a proj- 
ect and the regulatory body (Visual Arts Committee) members should be given 
the same information-such as structural conditions at the site, the design sched- 
ule, the physical and social en vironment and the project costs. * 

'The Art Commission has to manage artists so that they work within established 
budgets and project schedules. ' 

'Sometimes it seems that practicality and art are mutually exclusive.* 

'We have creative artists and business-minded architects. There is a need for 
someone to work with artists to produce products that are within the budget' 



7. Despite concerns about the slow-moving nature of the program, there is 
praise for the Commission's work in administering the Art Enrichment Program. 

'There are good people on staff, we have a continuing relationship of interac- 
tion...' 

'In general, they do an excellent job in a chaotic environment. They occupy a 
niche, a tough spot to be in.' 



» Ordinance and Art Enrichment Operations 



1. There is support for the change of allocation from "up to two percent" to "two 
percent." This should be pursued by the Commission, particularly if this addresses 
the following: 

— Projects that are underbudgeted from the start, and end up with cost 
over-runs. 

— Upfront funding for artists. 

'The Art Commission needs to understand that the legal/design requirements sti- 
fle artists who have very limited resources.' 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 31 



"Artists usually lose money on public projects because of the lack of up-front 
funds. Anything that can be done to change that would make a difference. " 

"It is unreasonable to not apply any funding for the artists' feasibility studies." 



2. There is strong support in using funds for conservation and maintenance of art 
works. 



"The big issue is getting money to do it. With the changed economy I can 't see 
the mayor's office offering new dollars when we are closing health clinics. If 
there isn't a change, there has to be private fund raising, just like Friends of the 
Library." 

"Conservation is a real issue, and the money has to come from somewhere." 



3. People interviewed feel that there is a need to redefine the real costs of the 
enrichment programs, and ensure that enough administrative funds are allocated 
for all the participating agencies. 

"The current program is burning out the willing partnership of other agencies. 
Something has to be done to cover the administration of all of this." 

"A sliding administrative fee should be charged, with the bigger projects taking 
more." 



4. There is little support for using enrichment funds for temporary works of art, 
based on the perceptions people have had of the Market Street Art in Transit 
Project. People seem to feel that the current economy is too tight, and municipal 
funds too stretched, to afford what might be considered by some to be frivolous. 
This may suggest moving away from temporary public art works or projects. 

"Temporary art today is a frill. " 

"The Market Street Program was approved at a time when things were differ- 
ent—there were more resources and less human destruction. It made sense then 
but not now." 

"It's a total disgraceful waste of money - the other visual distractions on Market 
Street are overwhelming." 



32 



Part 2: Findings and Recommendation* 



7 think it is insanity." 

"Use the money to clear up Market Street - the trash and the graffiti - rather 
than on this program.' 



5. There was limited commentary on the concept of requiring two percent on all 
capital improvement costs rather than just on the costs of Qty buildings. The 
feedback was cautious, based on economic concerns. 

"Where is the money going to come from, particularly if artists can *t contain 
their costs, and projects aren't well planned from the beginningr 



6. People feel that it is important for public art funds to be keyed to art that is re- 
flective of diverse cultures and aesthetics. 

"Projects have to be from more than one aesthetic." 
"Muaiculturalism has to be apart of the public art in San Francisco." 

Civic Art Collection 

The Commission's responsibilities for the Civic Art Collection are unknown by 
most outside of the agency or outside of the City's other arts agencies, yet conserva- 
tion of art works is a consideration for many, as per the commentary above. 

"It would be nice to know about all the works of art the City owns. " 
"We need a source of funding to care for all of these art works." 



1. The changes proposed for the public art ordinance, to allow funds for conser- 
vation of art works, is an important step in helping the Commission be able to 
meet existing and future conservation needs. 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 33 



2. The City's art collection, including all the works of public art that have been 
commissioned through the Enrichment Program, are important tools for audi- 
ence development. Collection management and marketing needs to be done from 
the perspective of continuously educating the public concerning the works and 
the rich San Francisco art tradition. 



"Public art is one of the major components of audience development and of arts 
in education. It is absolutely central. " 

"The entire art collection is a means to building public interest in Ike arts, and 
needs to be viewed this way." 



Street Artist Licensing 

The Street Artist Licensing program has been widely copied in other communi- 
ties throughout the United States and in foreign countries, and yet continues to be 
extremely difficult and labor intensive to manage and regulate. This study's focus 
group with street artists was the most lively (or contentious) of all the research ses- 
sions. Whereas in other areas, discussions generally moved towards consensus and 
interviews reflected many similar views, here there was divided opinion. The follow- 
ing observations and recommendations can be made: 



1. Engage practicing street artists in a new and ongoing planning process, led by 
the Street Artists committee. 

"The entire Street Artists Program needs to be revisited* 

"There is a need to revitalize the Street Artists Program -just about everything 
including criteria, screening procedures, quality." 

"A new vision is needed for the Street Artists Program. We haven 't changed with 
the time." 



2. Reduce the regulatory process in assigning licenses. 



"The fact that the full Commission has to approve, even though it is pro forma, 
slows up the process for the artist. Too much process. " 



34 



Part 2: Findings and Recommendations 



'Streamlining is in the best interest of the artists. Don 't take three months to 
renew a license.' 

'Develop a calendar for the renewal process.' 



3. Street artists articulated the following needs and desired changes in the pro- 
gram: 

— The need to form a formal Coalition of Street Artists to wfcte them to speak 
with one voice and provide a peer regulatory group 

— Hie need for the Commission to be an advocate for the street artists program 
and improve communication with the street artists. 

— The need to affect better communications with merchants. 

'Take major responsibility for informing merchants about the differences be- 
tween street artists and street vendors." 



4. Licensing and enforcement are the continuing hot-button issues. Some favor 
re-screening and licensing. Others feel that the selection criteria should be re- 
vised, with different assignments based on level of artists, though this was contro- 
versial. Most participants feel that competent inspection is the answer. 

The following recommendations were made by participants in the study: 

— Hire inspectors who work on weekends, when most violations occur. 

— Have stronger penalties for violators. 

— Issue licenses at a slower rate. 

— Process only ten applicants per month and charge a non-refundable 
screenlng/re-screening fee. 

"Kick ass and take names." 



Pops 

Should the Art Commission be in the business of putting on Pops concerts? 
Feedback through this assessment was nearly unanimous that this Charter function 
of the agency needs to be changed, with a win-win solution that gives both parties 
the revenues they need, so that the Commission can turn its attention to audience de- 



ArUMarket Consulting, Inc. 35 



velopment with approaches more keyed to reaching the diversity of the City's popu- 
lation. 

"The Art Commission shouldn't be in the business of putting on concerts.' 



1. The current relationship with the SFO is tense and fosters ongoing perceived 
bad relationships between the Commission and all major arts institutions. 

"It just creates bad feelings when the Commission gets in and does booking for 
the SFO." 

"Tm not a musician. It is very unnatural sitting here making value judgements 
on artists to pair with the Symphony." 

"The Commission could do the greatest service to the performing arts just by 
smoothing out the situation. It seems like it is meddling in other organizations' 
business." 

"The Symphony and Commission need to make an arrangement." 



2. When the Pops was created as a Charter activity, the need was to create em- 
ployment opportunities for musicians. Today the needs and priorities are on build- 
ing audiences for the arts. 

"This is old history a work program for musicians from the 30s. It doesn 't work 
anymore." 

"What is the real policy and reason? In 1932, it was to give work to the musi- 
cians. Now it has to be to get music to the people. " 

"The Commission shouldn't be doing paid-ticket concerts if it is building audi- 
ences — but free concerts instead. There should be high visibility. Get art to the 
people." 



3. In looking at the Pops as an audience development mechanism, the Commis- 
sion needs to be clear in stating its goals: Who does it want to attract, how, and 
through what approaches. 

"Either say to the Orchestra -- here are the requirements for reaching the pub he, 
here are the needs and go with it, or find a different way to reach the public." 



36 Part 2: Findings and Recorr>T»(v "'ions 



"Free concerts should be linked to social (causes.) After the earthquake, a free 
concert drew 30,000 people. * 

"The Art Commission must be clear - what kind of audience, how to build audi- 
ences, if we know what we want The Art Commission wiB lose if it isn't sure 
what they want." 



4. Many feel that the 1994 closing of the Gvic Center offers opportunities for 
change. 



"The Civic Center won't be available in 1994: That's a gnat opportunity for 
change, as there will be problems in trying to duplicate the size of the hall* 

"In 1994, when the Pops takes place in Davies Hall, the SFO will have even 
more control This is good timing now to change the way things are done. * 



5. The Commission needs to address its ultimate objectives with the Pops, and 
develop new approaches to accomplishing these. 



"The ultimate objectives are two things: more of an audience and more of a di- 
verse audience; and earned income. The Commission has to ask itself— is this 
the way to reach those two objectives?* 

"Pops doesn 't meet the Art Commission goal of bringing people and art together. ' 

"Pops is the ballgame of San Francisco society Over the years this has built up, 
as have the prices for the tickets. People aren 't made to feel welcome. It is an 
elitist group, and that's not what the Commission should be supporting." 



6. A solution needs to be negotiated with the San Francisco Symphony Orches- 
tra, that provides both parties with the revenue they need from their long-term 
partnership. Appropriate changes then need to be made to the Charter language. 



"The Commission needs to receive the amount that it has been able to count on 
as earned income, $200,000, and the Symphony needs to have the revenue it has 
been counting on. Both sides should come to the table with a series of ideas, 
and work out a solution." 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 



37 



Cultural Equity Funding 

The proposed Cultural Equity Funding is viewed with optimism by many in the 
arts community. There are some strong sentiments concerning the distribution of 
the funds, and the role that the Commission should play. 



1. People feel the funds should be distributed to neighborhood organizations, 
cultural centers, and ethnically-diverse artists and arts organizations, 

'The Art Commission needs to support the decentralization of arts programs to 
the neighborhoods.'' 

'The Cultural Equity Endowment should not be diluted by giving most of the 
money to non-ethnic groups.' 

'Involve people of color from the Cultural Centers in (he decision-making pro- 
cess for the Cultural Equity Endowment grants' 

'Establish panels with representatives from the Cultural Centers to determine 
how the funds are distributed.' 

'Open up the grant-making process.* 

'The Art Commission would be good in offering grants - open the entire pro- 
cess up.' 

"The Commission needs to promote cultural equity in arts funding and pro- 
grams.' 



2. There is a sense from GFTA that the Commission should be the grant-distrib- 
utor to individual artists, through the Cultural Equity program. 

'It seems that the Art Commission is the appropriate agencies to fund individual 
artists. We don 't have the experience in regrants to individual artists. We don *t 
want to develop the bureaucracy. ' 



New Agency Program Funding 

Funding of its various programs, particularly those not mandated by ordinances 
or Charter, is a top consideration for the Commission and its constituents. Not sur- 
prisingly, there is ambivalence on this from many. A desire to see the Commission 



38 Part 2: Findings and Recommendations 



be able to attract more funding, to undertake more programs; mixed with a concern 
that a public agency would even consider raising money from the private sector, in 
perceived competition with other non-profits. 



1. The agency should aggressively move forward in seeking major new funding 
from public sector sources, based on new priorities as identified in this report. 
There is a strong desire to see the agency develop new funding strategies, and to 
especially have it aggressively seek public funding from all available local, state, 
and federal sources. 



"The competition for arts dollars is cut throat. But when you think differently 
about time and resources, whole new visions open up." 

"The Commission needs to play a major role in funding the arts." 

"Prop J is an example of a real role that the Art Commission can play There 
need to be policy level discussions about how to best secure the most prop J 
funding -- not just staff level discussions. " 

"The Commission needs to be at the table for discussions like Prop J. It has got- 
ten too used to being left out. It has to sell what it can offer to other agencies. " 



2. Cultural organizations want the Commission to focus on development of long- 
range plans to generate resources to support other arts organizations besides the 
Symphony, and to give priority to saving arts organizations that are "city trea- 
sures" and which are threatened with closure, like the Pickle Family Circus. 



"For example, we have an extensive school program, but we can If serve as many 
kids as we would like because we don 't have bus money The Art Commission 
should be identifying state and federal grants to apply for on a City-wide basis to 
provide money for busing-- not just for my institution but for aQ the museums. 
It can 't be left to the individual organizations because it does not happen. " 



3. New earned income sources need to be considered, including additional fees 
for licensing, design review and public art; additional fees for services for Art- 
House. Also underwriting of Gallery programs and fees for using the space for re- 
ceptions, etc. 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 



39 



4. Funders are concerned that the Commission would consider seeking private 
sector funds in competition with other arts organizations. Yet others from the pri- 
vate sector, including arts organization representatives, want it to seek funds that 
would otherwise not be available to City organizations. The Commission needs 
to work in partnership with private sector funders and representatives from the 
arts community to develop appropriate collaborative funding mechanisms. 



"Hfe can't have a public agency soliciting private sector monies* 

"No one organization, acting alone, can get money for some of the big projects 
that need to be going on here, like some of the A iE coordination. The Commis- 
sion should go after securing funds that can help everyone. ' 

'Stabilizing our art organizations should be a top priority, and the Commission 
should do whatever it can to get money to make that happen, as long as it 
doesn t take away from money that would go to our organizations. * 



OPERATIONS 

The assessment commentary and recommendations above suggest many options 
for the Commission's long-range plan. In addition to looking at these program and 
services areas the Commission needs to assess current operations and governance. 

Commissioners 



1. More "thanks" and structure would help the Commission. Commissioners cur- 
rently put in an enormous amount of time in regulatory and other program areas, 
and don't often see a payback in public thanks. They come to the Commission 
without a clear understanding of what will be required of them: Some find the 
committee responsibilities confusing. 



"We have to raise the self-esteem of the Commission — there is an image of not 
being respected" 

"Commissioners were sent a bunch of stuff at the beginning I didn 't know what 
the job was or what I was supposed to do. Selection of committee assignments 
was weird* 

"President and officer roles are vague* 

*Ihave no idea howpo\'K r ful Commissioners are supposed to be.* 



40 



Part 2: Findings and Recommendations 



2. Commissioners should have more opportunities for informal briefing and 
communication from the staff and other commissions. Some feel that the regula- 
tory nature of their tasks means that there is little time to spend on vision or on 
general discussion concerning the future of the arts in San Francisco. 

Td welcome more communication from the staff. But itisntan atmosphere of 
sit down and talk.* 

'The Commissioners should hold more joint meetings with other policy groups, 
to get an idea of what policies and issues we should be thinking about. * 

"More should be done to provide information to Commissioners, such as the 
guided tours of the Neighborhood Arts Centers.'' 



3. Some wonder if the Commission's focus on details is always necessary, and 
suggest more of a focus on the "big picture." 

"The Commissioners are too concerned with details. They need to be more Uke 
a board of directors: shift from the day to day, to overview. They need to target 
the big picture, not minutia." 

"How much time do Commissioners realistically have?" 

"Too many rules are bad " 

One interviewee, from another City government agency, described the 
Commissioner's role as: 

"The profile of a good Commissioner interest in the subject; supportive of man- 
agement; focuses on broad policy - not micro management - and publicly of- 
fers support." 



4. This plan should address the need for Commission term length and structure 
of the Commission. 

"There is a need to limit the number of terms that Commissioners can serve." 
"You shouldn 'tbea Commissioner for life There is no limit as to terms now. " 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 41 



5. Commission committee meetings need to be streamlined, and committees re- 
structured to be in sync with key new initiatives that come out of this plan. 

"Not every staff activity requires a motion and action from the Commission." 

"Does everything have to be regulatoryF 

"The Visual Arts Committee is overloaded and will continued to be affected by 
the new airport project " 

"We need an arts in education committee." 

"Create a larger visual arts committee." 

"There is no marketing and PR committee but there are discussions from the 
Commission. What would its role be? Right now it is people who know people 
ask for free help -a PR Firm that worked on another project. " 

"We're so busy discussing what's on the agenda, that there is no time for poScy. 
No time for planning." 



Staff 



1. Staff are considered by the Commissioners and other agency professionals to 
be strong and highly professional, but stretched too thin to accomplish all that the 
Commission currently has on its agenda. Staff need to work in a new structure 
that ensures adequate coverage for priority programs and services. 

"The staff are competent people, and responsible. They are very professional" 

"They are just too short handed. There is no relief team, no backup. The chain 
loses the links when someone is out or people get sick." 

"Don 't try to do everything. Can 't do it This is what you can do, and do it well. " 



42 Part 2: Findings and Recommendations 



2. Some feel that the staff don't have the flexibility to approach projects from 
new vantage points, or with creative problem-solving. Others feel there is a ten- 
sion between staff and the Commission. Staff need to develop new ways to ad- 
dress problems, and get out of the rigid, bureaucratic approach to agency 
administration. 



'Staff are very rigid. They have preconceived ideas about what works and what 
doesnt.' 

'Staff feel threatened by the Commissioners. The Commissioners want to take 
on an active role. But staff put up roadblocks. Why?* 



3. Based on internal organizational interviews and staff round-table discussions, 
it appears that the Commission staff need the focus of the plan to help target pri- 
orities and increase group morale. Many programs have grown over the years 
without direction, so that there is a composite of loosely related projects. 

"There is considerable competition within the programs to protect and further in- 
dividual projects, protect against work overload and to get support from the di- 
rector.' 



4. Staff are uncertain about what is expected of them by the Executive Director 
and the Commission. They need more feedback, in a more constructive and regu- 
lar fashion. 



"/ need to know what my responsibilities are relative to the program or to my 
staff. I just invented my work as it went along.' 



5. There is a need for written information and ongoing verbal reinforcement 
about the governance procedures of the agency, in particular those that are man- 
dated by City policies in areas of accounting, contracting, purchasing, and report- 
ing. Difficulties in meshing agency procedures with the City's changing 
requirements have resulted in project and check delays, creating frustration and 
bad will. Though there are policy manuals, these may need to be regularly up- 
dated through meetings and office memos. 



'There needs to be a better way of receiving information about changes in City 
purchasing regulations. Every contract seems to require something new ' 



ArtsMarkat Consulting, Inc. 



43 



6. There is a major need for the staff to work together as a team. Each depart- 
ment, and in some cases, individuals, are often off doing their work separately. 
There is a need for more intra-departmental communication. Staff meetings 
need to move from reporting of departmental information to agency creative 
problem-solving. This will help build a central focus, sense of shared priorities. 

'We are all off on our own. There needs to be a shared vision. " 

'I feel there is a lack of cohesiveness among the staff at the Commission.' 

"I can't tell you what the mission or purpose of the Art Commission is, and I'm 
not sure I understand the fundamental aims of the other programs - and I won- 
der whether they understand mine." 

"I do not feel part of a team.'" 

"Right now it seems like we promote the programs rather than promote the 
agency." 



7. There is a sense of insecurity as to what the Commission might cut or expand. 

Programs are split between regulatory and discretionary, so that "mandated" pro- 
grams seem more secure or important than others. 

"The Commission does not altogether know the programs and might cut sup- 
port, so everyone feels nervous in dealing with them." 



44 Part 2: Findings and Recommendations 



RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE: 
POTENTIAL OPERATIONAL GOALS 



1. The "new" Commission - the agency of the future - should have the ability to 
focus equally on demand (building an audience and appreciation for the arts) and 
on supply (services to the arts to help them in turn serve audiences). In focusing 
on the balance of supply and demand, the following planning questions should be 
asked: 



What does it take to build demand? How can existing programs be re-thought so that 
we have maximum impact on audience development and on creating publk value for 
the arts? 

How can we re-think and expand on services to make sure that supply is efficiently 
addressed? How can service be structured to be more efficient, so that the regulatory 
functions don't overwhelm the agency's ability to serve. 



2. A focus on supply and demand may suggest grouping existing programs under 
new headings. Staff structure has to change to effectively address priorities, build 
team and strengthen communications, and address burn-out. Areas that have 
heavy "paper work" requirements need appropriate support staff; existing teams 
and structures need to be reconsidered. Here is a preliminary way of seeing how 
some programs could be administratively clustered: 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 45 



IS 



ii 



si 



I! 



\\ |l 



I- 



i 

C 

S 

n 

I 

3 



4 



L + 

i 

i 



i 1 



!i 



i-iii 

1 ii II 



I* 



III ii 



I 



I, 

ii ! 



I : 



li 



I 



46 



Part 2: Findings and Recommendationa 



Potential Model for New Structure 




Cultural Audience 
Development Programs 

V Pops 

V Community Arts 

V Arts in Education 

V Community Cultural 
Centers 

V General Audience 
Development/Marketing 



Administration 
& Operations 

V Fund 
raising 

V Agency 
marketing 

V Finance 



Arts Support Programs 

V ArtHouse 

V Gallery 

v^ Public Art 

V Street Artist 
License Program 

V Market Street 

V Art collection 

V Design Review 



ArtsMarket Consulting, Inc. 



47 



3. Some existing programs should be dropped or transformed based on contem- 
porary needs — i.e. Pops, as per the findings and recommendations above - and 
others should be eventually spun-off as independent non-profits (ArtHouse.) Pro- 
grams that are currently taking considerable time - i.e. Market Street and Design 
Review — may also need to be re-considered based on the assessment. The cul- 
tural centers should be reviewed for long-term lease arrangements with the Com- 
mission. 



4. Various new funding strategies are important for the Commission to consider 
as a part of this plan: 

— A facilities endowment for the Cultural Centers (for long-term facility 
maintenance). 

— A collaborative fund (public-private partnership) for arts in education 
planning and program development This could become a "Foundation for 
AiE" - an endowment fund that will offer long-term Interest revenue for AiE. 

— Funding for audience development initiatives (incorporating the existing 
Pops net revenue, plus additional funding). 

— Prop J funding. 

— For granting, portion of the Cultural Equity Fund. 

— A "Gallery Fund" 501 (c)3 entity, that can fund raise through contributions, 
hold benefit activities, etc. 

These suggest that administrative time will need to be dedicated to fundraising 
and grant development. 



5. Commission by-laws should be changed to reflect contemporary organiza- 
tional needs. The following changes should be made: 

— There should be term limitations for all Commissioners. 

— Commission membership should be broadened to represent new areas of 
emphasis for the Commission, particularly in areas of arts in education, 
public information and audience development. 

— Committees should be revised to meet program/service needs as well as 
operational areas such as fundraising/ development. This should be done 
after the plan is generally defined, so that committees mesh with priorities. 



48 Part 2: Findings and Recommendations 



Whenever possible, non -regulatory work should be delegated to advisory 
committees or boards, as with the current model of the Gallery Advisory 
Board and the Street Artists committee. This will allow for non-board 
members to take an active role, and will reduce the workload for the 
Commissioners. Advisory committees or boards should be linked to the 
Commission through the participation of at least one Commission member. 

The Commission "sign-off" process, particularly Involving committees, should 
be streamlined wherever possible. More responsibility should be delegated to 
the supporting advisory committees or boards, with the stipulation that final 
recommendations be approved by the Commission without the need for a 
Commission committee to also approve recommendations. This Is 
particularly Important in areas that currently require repeated 
back-and- forth communication and reporting. A concerted effort should be 
made to reduce the bureaucracy. 



6. In addition, greater clarity needs to be given to defining the "policy" roles of 
the Commission, vs. the regulatory task roles. If the Commission is to shift atten- 
tion away from "minutia" to policy, it needs a new directive. 



7. The plan should detail appropriate Charter changes, so that the agency has 
the ability to meet contemporary needs. Within this, the agency needs to care- 
fully consider how (and if) it can serve all of the arts disciplines, rather than its 
current primary focus on visual arts and music (and literature through the grants 
program.) 



8. The Commission should take the leadership role in structuring an effective 
forum for communications and partnership between the City's various cultural 
and arts agencies. It should establish a "Cultural Development Council" that 
could be convened regularly by the Commission, bringing together all the public 
sector agencies, and possibly private sector foundations as well, to work on uni- 
fied policy and voice and determine joint actions on implementing the Arts Pol- 
icy. 



The following goals were stated by the staff at the start of this process. They are 
appropriate to state, in closing this report, as the assessment commentary shows that 
these goals can be met: 



ArtsMarfcet Consulting, Inc. 



Five Year Vision 



The Commission will be: 



A creative agency. 

Multi-disciplinary, full service, integrated, fully equipped, fully 
funded, fully staffed, with a new building. 

A pleasant place to work, with more laughter. 

There will be a public information person, and development person. 

There will be changes in the City Charter 

The agency will be internationally recognized. It will have creative, 
innovative model programs, recognized locally and in the field. 



50 Part 2: Find Inge ftffwJ Recommendations 



Addendum 



♦»W W ll MMM I> mMM I MMMmM N*« M » M t)*M*C * I MM I MMM ill M IC MM Qi m O » II M IO M «»O MMMMH I MHM II MM I8 M > MMM 



RESEARCH PLAN 



Introduction 



This research plan identifies the research topics and composition of the focus 
groups. It is intended to be used as a working document for the Art Commission 
staff, Commissioners, and local consultants as we complete the research 
component of the planning project. 

Research Topics 

A critical component of research is to carefully identify the research topics 
to be studied. These are not the actual questions that the moderator will pose 
during a focus group, but represent what needs to be learned from the 
research. The following topics emerged during internal discussions with Art 
Commission staff and Commissioners as critical information needs, related to 
the Agency's long-range plan. These questions are organized by subject area. 



* 



* 



Is the Art Commission in the business of regulation or 

is its job to encourage growth, stability, and unity in 

the arts community? 

Should the Art Commission be a proactive or reactive 
agency? What is the correct balance, given the City's 
arts environment? Should the Art Commission be the 
agency/leader to encourage unity within the arts 
community? 

How can the Art Commission balance charter mandates 
with pressing needs in the arts community? 

Where does the Art Commission fit in the City's arts 
"ecosystem?" What is its relationship with other City 
arts-related departments? What is its relationship with 
the arts community? (Major institutions, community 
cultural centers, small/mid-sized arts organizations.) 

What is the Art Commission's appropriate role or 
combination of roles in supporting individual artists? 
How can the Art Commission encourage the City and its 
residents to use artists as a creative resource? 



Research Plan 
Page 2 



What is the Art Commission's role as a grantmaker or 
distributor of City arts funding to arts organizations 
and individual artists? What is the Commission's role 
as a technical assistance provider? 

How can the Art Commission encourage greater public value 
or more positive attitudes concerning the arts? How can 
it encourage greater public appreciation of public art, 
conservation, arts education, arts as linked to youth 
programs, and integrating art into the life of the City? 

How can the Art Commission best serve all art forms? What 
is its specific role as it relates to the performing arts? 

What is the Art Commission's role in arts in education? 
What is the definition? If AiE is approached broadly, how 
can the Art Commission address a huge range of needs with 
limited dollars/staffing? Should the agency be a 
programmer, grantmaxer, advocate, facilitator, and/or 
networker? What will have the most impact? 

How can the Art Commission make the arts accessible to 
different communities within the City? How can the Art 
Commission encourage and nurture innovative linkages 
between the arts, youth program, and other community 
development services? 

How can the Art Commission work in partnership with the 
community cultural centers operating out of City-owned 
facilities? What is needed to create effective and 
"happy partnerships? What is needed to make these 
centers strong entities that make arts accessible to their 
communities in innovative ways? 

How can the Pops programs be best used as an audience 
development tool? Does this require changes in the Pops 
programming and/or marketing strategies? How can tne 
Pops relate to the City's changing demographics? 

How can the Art Commission positively influence the City's 
built environment, and enhance the City's image? 

How can the Street Artists Program generate enthusiastic 
support by businesses? 

How can the Art Commission's public art program and civic 
review function encourage incorporating artists into the 
total design process rather than using artists/art as an 
enhancement? How can Public Art be seen as a total part 
of the building design process, not as a decorative item/ 



Research Plan 
Page 3 



How can the Art Commission encourage successful 
collaborations for temporary public art projects? 

How can the Art Commission's gallery best serve the needs 
of "emerging" artists? 

How can the Art Commission become a laboratory for 
conservation policies, methods, and public education as 
related to the City's public art and art collection? 

How can the Art Commission's programs be promoted and 
identified as outstanding model programs in their field, 
to politicians, and to residents? 

How can the Art Commission's programs within the agency 
collaborate with each other to address the needs of 
individual artists, turn around public perceptions of the 
value of the arts, and grantmaking? 

How is the Art Commission perceived by other City 
departments? How can it be viewed as an effective 
partner/collaborator with other City departments? 

How can the Art Commission be perceived as a model 
municipal agency — as a creativity resource for other 
City departments, important leader, inclusive, and an 
essential service? 

How can the Art Commission challenge the way it operates 
and be recognized as a model City government department? 
How can the Art Commission re-invent itself as a 
City/municipal arts agency? 



Internal Issues 

* 



How can the Commissioners best play the role of 
spokespersons, advocates, public relations 
representatives, networkers via the staff, and 
politicians? How can the Commissioners focus more on 
setting policy rather than day-to-day decisions? 

How can the various committees work more effectively with 
staff? Does the current structure need to be changed? 

What is the appropriate role/function of a 501(c)3? 
Should it function as a fundraising entity, be an 
advocate, or other functions? What is tne relationship 
between this entity's board and the Commissioners? 



Research Plan 
Page 4 

Compositio n of Focus Groups 

Ten focus groups will be conducted. During each group interview, the 
participants will be asked a series of general questions about the Art 
Commission's role, issues they are facing, and specific questions as related to 
Art Commission's programs. We propose targeting between 10-20 participants 
for each group, with the following design: 

1. Street Artists: This focus group should consist of 
individual artists who have participated in or 

have used the Art Commission's ArtHouse or Gallery 
programs. A mix of visual, performing, and other art 
forms should be included. 

2. Other Individual Artists: This focus group should 
consist of individual artists. This would include artists 

who have submitted proposals for the Market Street 
project, Public Art Program (artists who live in City). 

3. Individuals Who Peal with Built Environment: This focus 
group should consist of developers, architects, designers, 
and others who have participated in the Commission's Civic 
Design Review, Public Art Program, or ArtHouse projects. 

4. Arts Institutions: This focus group should 

consist of representatives from the all arts institutions. 
- including those organizations that would be affected by 
new grant programs proposed by the Cultural Affairs Task 
Force. This focus group may also include representatives 
from various arts services organizations which serve these 
organizations. 

5. City Employees : This focus group should consist of 
representatives from the various City departments. 

6. Community Cultural Centers; This focus group should 
consist of staff and board members from the Cultural 
Centers which program in City-owned facilities. 

7. Community Organizations: This focus group should 
consist of organizations/individuals which have been 
funded through the CAE program. It may include artists, 
community organizations, and arts organizations. There 
should be a mix of projects and communities (e.g. Youth 
Development Projects, Festivals, Literary Project, etc.). 



Research Plan 
Page 5 



9. Educators: This group should consist of representatives 
from the public schools who are involved with arts 
education. This group would include teachers, 
administrators, parents, and others who work in schools. 

10. Funders; This group should consist of the hinders who 
have been meeting around the arts in education issues as 
well as other public/private funders that may be involved 
in partnerships with the Art Commission. 



/ 



w-ifr 



*|S3 



DOCI imcmtq n^pT", 

APR 3 1993 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



t 



Minvrtes 

San Francisco ^rt Commission 
Long Range Planning Committee Meeting 
/!(/ Apri 1 14 , 199 3 
25 Van Ness , Sui te 70 



Committee Members Present: Robert LaRocca (Chair), 

John Kriken, Nancy Beet el 

Committee Members Absent: Anne Mealy, Rai Okamoto 

Commissioners Present: Liza Zenni, Alonzo King 

Staff Present: Joanne Chow Winship, Richard 

Newirth, Jill Manton, Sonia Gray, 
Susan Pontious, Tonia MacNeii, 
Howard Lazar, Jason Tannen , 
Kate Bell, Raymond Wong 

The meeting was called to order at 10:15 a.m. by Robert 
LaRocca. The first order of business was to amend the 
amount of the bond issue request for the cultural centers. 
The Bureau of Architecture made adjustments to the numbers 
and scope of work which necessitated an increase. The 
following motion was made by Commissioner LaRoca, seconded 
and unanimously approved: 

Motion to amend the request of $20 million to $22 
million to the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee, to 
the Board of Supervisors and to the voters of San Francisco 
for a bond to cover the costs of seismic, asbestos removal, 
disability access, rehabilitation, Improvements, relocation, 
project control, and inflation for the Art Commission 
Gallery and the following neighborhood cultural centers: 
Bayview Opera House, Mission Cultural ('enter, South of 
Market Cultural Center and Center for African and African- 
American Art and Culture. 

Louise Stevens of ArtsMarket reviewed the assessment, 
process and draft report. The draft report was a result of 
many interviews on a i ml i \ idual basis and in snia I I group 
sessions with commissioners, staff, department heads and 
managers, and practitioners in the arts fields and with 
Commission programs. The assessment phase is devoted to 
identifying and assessing issues, opportunities, concerns, 
and structural/internal needs to be addressed in the plan. 

Commissioner LaRocca commented on Low he appreciated 
the concise format of the draft report. Conn, iss Lonei Zenni 
commented that she 1 iked the boldness of the dral i report. 
At Commissioner- Ileal v' s request, Director Winship relayed 
Healy's displeasure with the draft report. Ileal; v wanted a I 1 
comments to be ident ified as to who made I. hem, and felt that 



Art. Commission Long Range Planning Committee Minutes 
-4/14/93 Page 2 



those who made comments about the visual arts were 
uninformed about, the Commission's work. Commissioner kriken 
felt that the comments revealed the Planning Department's 
continued refusal t.o accept, the jurisdiction of the Art 
Commission over design review of public building's and public 
spaces . 

Louise Stevens pointed oul that, however wrung 
perceptions are, that they are the perceptions of the 
participants and that there may be small ways that the 
Commission can make them better, perhaps in the regulatory 
process . 

Commissioner Kriken noted that the Civic Design 
Committee work did in some cases save? the publ ic money with 
design advice on public projects. The positive aspects 
needed to be communicated to those objecting to the process. 
There was also the suggestion that a guideline sheet could 
be prepared for potent, ial presenters t.o communicate what the 
committee may be concerned with. 

Stevens stressed the format, of the report was to be 
bold. She had wanted to put mil a draft for the Commission 
to react to and discuss. She Celt, that much planning 
material had been previously developed For the Commission, 
but that it was not structured for- act. ion and change. She 
acknowledged that there may be mispe rcept i ons in the 
comments and perhaps on her part, but it was a place to 
start and to correct those inispercept ions, as we 1 1 as to 
address and prioritize other- important issues Facing the 
Comm ission . 

Ms. Stevens then reviewed a I isf of areas developed 
earlier in the day by staff as to where the philosophy and 
mission of the Art Commission should be Focused: 



1. Art is integral part o f the city. City government is 

Fund amen taJ iy connected to I he arts. 

2. There should be stable, healthy arts. 

3. Improved urban environment . 
I. Arts; key part, of educal ion. 

5 . Expanded publ i c respect \\>v the arts; pub I i c 

reeogn i t ion. 
t5 . Audience for the arts reflects demographics of I he cits 

7. Network of resources throughout the city. 

8. Publ ie/pr i vat.e partnerships to leverage money. 



Art Commission Long Range Planning Committee Minutes 
4/14/93 page 3 



Commissioner LaRocca asked if this discussion was 
factoring in expansion during a downward economic cycle for 
the next five years. Not neccessarily expansion commented 
Stevens who explained that it could be restructuring, and 
developing partnerships and collaboration. However, she 
agreed that it would be difficult to bring about growth in a 
poor economic climate. 

* 

Commissioner Bechtle commented that the value of 
planning was that at one point in time, we were all involved 
in reaching common agreements and goals for the agency. 

After a lively exchange of ideas, the; beginning of a 
new mission statement evolved: 

"The Art Commission is the city agency that gives voice 
and ensures the value and importance of art in civic life of 
San Francisco." A variation of this was also suggested; 

"The Art Commission is the city agency that presents, 
supports, promotes, and defends the role of the importance 
of art in civic life in San Francisco." 

It was agreed that the statement need to be concise and 
bold. A wordsmithing team, composed of Commissioners Zenni 
and King, staff members Winship, Manton and Tanner, was put 
together to work further on the statement. 

Stevens would return on May 24 to facilitate another 
planning session with Commissioners and staff. 



Minutes prepared by Joanne ('how Winship, 4/1 (i / 9 3 



MAY-21-1993 lb =45 FROM 

M0.45 



S F PRTS COMMISSION 



TO 



8643351 



P. 01 



City and County 
^ San Francisco 




25 Van Ness Avenue 

Suite ?40 

San Frandsco. CA 94102 

(415) 554-9671 

FAX #621-3866 



PROGRAMS 
Arts Festivals 
Civic Art Cotectton 
Civic Design Review 
Community Arts & Education 
FOPS Symphony Concerts 
Public Art Program 



Su-te 430 

Street Artists Licenses 

415-554-9677 

ArtH0U5e 

415-554-9679 



^ 



Long Range Planning Committee Meeting 
CMay 24, 1993, 4:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness, Suite 70 



Agenda 

1. Discuss and approve mission. 

2. Discuss and approve goal statements. 

3. Further define objectives for goal #4 concerning 

the Commission. 

4. Discuss objectives and make recommendations for 

further discussion by staff. 



DOHf IMnrMTC ncrpj 

MAY 2 4 1993 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



: Arts Commission Goilery 
155 Grove Street 
415-554-9682 





DOCUMFMTS O^PT. 

JUN 31993 

SAM FRANCISCO 
If// PUBLIC LIBRARY 

/ Minutes 

'San Francisco^Art Commission 

i((Long Range Planning Committee 

May 24, 19^3 

4 : 00 pTfrn = r ~~7Ti 5 p.m. 

Suite 70, 25 Van Ness 

Present: Commissioners LaRocca (Chair), Zenni , Okamoto, 
Kriken, Si-mon, Healy, King, Kirk and Lim. Staff members 
Winship, Nawirth, Pontious, Gray, Manton, Lazar, Lehane, 
Beaton, McMeil, Agrella, Tannen and Wettrich. 

Louise Stevens from Arts Market facilitated the long 
range planning session with Commissioners and staff. The 
following draft mission statement was discussed: "The Art 
Commission is the city agency that gives voice to the arts 
in San Francisco by uniting and strengthening the arts 
community. Believing that a health cultural environment is 
essential to the city's well being, our programs integrate 
the arts into all aspects of city life." There were 
questions as to whether strengthening the arts community did 
indeed give voice to the arts. The wordsmi thing team was 
asked to further review and refine the mission statement. 

The goals of draft plan #1 as condensed by Louise 
Stevens from the previous meeting in April, were reviewed. 
They were: Goal 1. To create an urban landscape in which the 
arts are a constant presence; Goal 2. To be a leader in 
developing innovative programming driven by the assessed 
needs of the community; Goal 3. To expand and improve the 
public's perception of the arts, raising the importance of 
the arts in everyday life; Goal 4. To ensure economic and 
organizational strength for the department. 

Conversation focused on what was needed to accomplish- 
the great number of worthy objectives to achieve these 
goals. The group felt very positve about the agency citing 
the good foundation it was built upon and its current 
organization of programs and activities. Commissioners were 
encouraged to spend more time with the Board of Supervisors 
educating them about the Art Commission, to attend City Hall 
meetings, and to be more vocal on behalf of the Art 
Commission through public testimony. 

Difficulty in communicating the wide range and 
diversity of Commission activities was discussed. This 
difficulty may be lessened by better clarifying the 
Commission's civic responsibilities versus its' community 
responsi bi 1 i tes. Some subjects discussed were the gallery, 
the neighborhood cultural facilities, technical assistance 
to non-profit arts organizations, and the POPS concerts. 



Discussed were some functions the Commission would be 
better off giving up, inorder for them to spend more quality 
time in areas affecting policy and funding. Areas, such as 
Street Artist regulatory functions, concert decorating 
contracts, and certain public art review functions, where 
micro decision are called for, need to be taken off the 
shoulders of the Commissioners. The need for streamlining 
the public art review process or putting in place a new 
system for review of the airport projects was brought up. 
The extent of staff authority in decision and policy making 
was discussed and how the lack of it, even regarding the 
smallest details, impairs working with other departments. 

Since the staff should be more aware of the financial, 
social and political conditions of a situation, the staff 
was encouraged to develop policy for review by the 
Commissioners. They were also encouraged to develop 
guidelines for staff decision making, to lessen the amount 
of detail brought to the Commissioners and to keep 
Commissioners updated on sensitive projects and projects 
identified by Commissioner's with specific concerns. 

Committee structure was reviewed. Formulating 
subcommittees or ad hoc committees to provide advisory 
information to staff would be helpful. Utilizing the 501 
(c) 3 as an advisory group in addition to serving as a 
fundraising and public advocacy group could be an important 
link for the Commission. 

Eliminating the duplication of efforts by committees, 
streamlining issues brought before the committee for action, 
reviewing most controversial item first on the agenda, and 
building in an evaluation plan for projects and programs 
would be steps toward facilitating the committee decision 
making process. 



Minutes prepared by Joanne Chow Winship, May 31, 1993. 



h 
0. & 

^L pOCUMFWTS DEPT. 

? ^3 JUN 15 1993 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 




AGENDA 



A\ 



Long Range Planning Meeting 

x 

San Francisco Art Commission 

25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70 

Commission Meeting Room 

Friday, June 18, 1993 
5:00 p.m. 



1. Long Range Planning Process: 
Schedule of Work Phases 



S F 



AC 



SAN FRANCISCO ART COMMISSION 



MAYOR 
Frank M. Jordan 



SAN FRANCISCO ART COMMISSION 
Accessible Meeting Policy 



COMMISSIONS US 

Anne Utah 
P he S I n l N l 

John Kriken 
Vice President 

Nancy Bechtie 

Aristides Demetrios 

Alonzo King 

Willis F. Kirk 

Robert F. LaRocca 

Genny Lim 

Rai Y. Okamoto 

Oodif Rosekrans 

Terri Simon 

Liza Zenni 



EX OFFICIO MEMBERS 

Presidents or the 

Fine Arts Museums 

Library Commission 

Planning Commission 

Recreation & 

Park Commission 



DIRECTOR OF 
CULTURAL AFFAIRS 

Ioanne Chow Winsiiip 



programs 

Civic Art Collection 

Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

POPS Symphony Concerts 

Public Art Program 



Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee 
Meetings of the Art Commission will be held at 25 
Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, San Francisco, 
California. Twenty Five Van Ness is located on the 
corner of Oak and Van Ness. Suite 70, basement 
level, can be accessed by the two main elevators in 
the lobby of the building. 

The closest accessible BART Station is the Civic 
Center Station located at the intersection of 
Market, Hyde and Grove Street. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J,K,L,M, 
and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, one-half block from the Art Commission 
offices. Accessible MUNI lines serving the corner 
of Van Ness and Market are 9,26, and 42. For more 
information regarding MUNI accessible services, 
please call (415) 923-6142. 

American sign language interpreters and/or a sound 
enhancement system will be available upon request 
at meetings. Please contact Sonia Gray in the 
Community Arts and Education Program at 
(415) 554-96" 1 at least 72 hours prior to meeting. 
Late requests will be honored in possible. 

To allow individuals with environmental illness or 
multiple chemical sensitivity to attend any 
meetings, individuals are requested to refrain from 
wearing perfume or other scented products . 



Street Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

415.252.2581 



Accessible curbside parking has been designated on 
Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 



Art Commission Gallery 

155 Grove Street 

415.554.9682 



Accessible seating for persons with disabilities 
(including those using wheelchairs) will be 
available. 




City and County of 
San Francisco 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240. San FRANCISCO. CA. 9 410 2 



mi. 415.252.2590 fax 41 




SAN FRANCISCO ART COMMISSION 



^w n" 



MAYOR 

Frank M. Jordan 



COMMISSIONERS 

anne heaiy 
president 

John Krikin 
Vict I' r t s i in n i 

Nancy BtCll ru 

Arisiidis Dimi I RIOS 

Aionio Kino 

Wiiiis F. Kirk 

Robert F. LaRocca 

GENNY Lim 

Rai Y. Okamoto 

dodii rosi krans 

Tirri Simon 

Liza Zinni 



officio members 

Presidents of the 

Fine Arts Museums 

Library Commission 

'lanninc. Commission 

Recreation & 

Park Commission 



DIRECTOR OF 
CULTURAL AFFAIRS 

)ANNl ClIOW WlNSMII' 



PROGRAMS 

Iivic Art CoutcTioN 

Civic DtsiGN Rsvnw 

Communis Auis 

& Education 

i Symi'iiony Concerts 

Puiuic Ari Piuh.ram 



treet Artists Licenses 
Siii i i 70 
415.252.2581 



Commission Gai i lry 

155 Grovi Sirih 

415.554.9 682 




City and County Of 
San Francisco 



LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 
Og-fctrtSer 5, 19 93 

25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70 



DO ri IMCMTQ HEPT. 

c:t 2 j 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



4" 



MINUTES 



Commissioners Present: Robert LaRocca, John Kriken, Stephen 

Nakajo, Anne Healy (arr. 4:20) 

Staff Present: Joanne Chow Winship, Richard Newirth 

Commissioner LaRocca called the meeting to order at 4:05 pm. 

1. Brief review of planning progress, draft #4 of Agency 
plan and draft revisions to the Arts Policy Plan, Part 2. 

Director Winship gave a brief status report on the long 
range planning process. She explained that the agency plan 
is about 85-90% complete and some decisions now had to be 
made about how to proceed with the remainder of the process. 
She explained that she favored an approach that would not 
prolong the process of review for the Arts Policy Plan. 
This might be to send the draft plan to other city agencies 
and then hold a single, facilitated meeting to try to reach 
consensus on what actions were feasible and the assignment 
of tasks. This approach would allow some of the time and 
project budget to be spent on other planning issues, such as 
those related to the Cultural Centers. 

The Commissioners then discussed draft #4 of the Art 
Commission long range plan. Commissioner Kriken suggested 
that Goal #1 be rewritten to specifically mention Civic 
Design Review. This change will be reflected in the next 
draft. Those present agreed that they would closely review 
draft #4 and forward their comments to Director Winship. 

2. Set program for November 3-5 session with ArtsMarket. 

November 4 was set as the date for a long range planning 
meeting with Commissioners, staff, and Louise Stevens of 
ArtsMarket. A meeting, facilitated by Louise Stevens, would 
be held on November 3 with representatives of city agencies 
to allow them to give their feedback to the Arts Policy Plan 
draft . 

3. Review and approve draft of Bylaws. 

The Commissioners reviewed the draft Bylaws that had 
previously been distributed. Several issues relating to 
length of Commissioners' terms and committee structure were 
raised by those Commissioners present. These issues will be 
clarified and appropriate revisions will be incorporated 
into the draft. It was also explained that the Bylaws would 
also be reviewed by the City Attorney so that approval by 
the Commission at this stage would be preliminary; 
subsequent approval of the final Bylaws may be necessary if 
the City Attorney makes any changes. 



') S V a M Mi 



) 1 fi 



I IS > S > > S O (I 



I I S ' s •> > s o s 



Motion to approve draft Art Commission Bylaws subject to 
incorporation of revisions relating to Commissioners ' terms 
and committee structure. Moved by Commissioner Kriken, 
seconded by Commissioner Nakajo. Unanimously adopted. 

4. Review issues related to establishment of 501 c.3 
"Friends" organization. 

Director Winship discussed the issues related to 
establishing a 501 c.3 organization that would allow the 
Commission to raise individual, corporate, and foundation 
funds and would serve as a fiscal agent for the Commission. 
She stated that two option were available: to create a new 
organization or assume control of an existing 501 c.3. 
Assuming control of an existing organization would be less 
costly but could expose the Commission to unknown liability. 
Creating a new organization would cost more money and would 
take more time. 

In either case, a new Board would need to be created. 
Director Winship noted that many Commissioners have been 
open about the fact that they do not wish to raise funds for 
the Art Commission, partially due to the fact that they are 
associated with other non-profit organizations for which 
they fundraise. The Commissioners present agreed with this 
assessment. Director Winship indicated that her thinking 
about this issue has changed and that she now believes it 
might be wiser to forego establishing a 501 c.3 and continue 
to use a fiscal agent. She indicated that staff is looking 
at moving funds from one fiscal agent to another to ensure 
security of existing funds and to consolidate them. If 
consolidation is the course decided on, this issue wMLl* be 
brought to Finance Committee. 

Motion to refer the 501 c.3 issue to the full Commission 
under the Long Range Planning Committee Report. Moved by 
Commissioner Kriken, seconded by Commissioner Healy. 
Unanimously adopted. 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned 
at 5:30 pm. 



Submi 




yUjr^- 'tfnhs 



Richard Newirth 
Assistant Director 



/A 



X SAN FRANCISCO /ART COMMISSION 



f* 



PROGRAMS 

Civic Aut Coi lection 

Civic Design Riview 

Community Arts 

ix Education 

)PS Symi'hony Concerts 

Public Art Program 



Street Artists Licenses 

Sum 70 

415.252 2581 



UT Commission Gallery 
155 Grove Street 
415.554.9682 



DOCHMFMT.q DEPT. 

COT 2 

SAN FRANCISCO 



/ ^im f-HANCISCO 

LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE ! BRAR1 



1:30 - 4:30 P.M. 
25 Van Ness, Suite 70 



AGENDA 



1. Introduction of Planning Consultant Louise Stevens of 
ArtsMarket 

2. Focused Discussion on Commission Objectives for Cultural 
Facilities and Relationships with Cultural Centers 

3. Focused Discussion on Procedures for Staff - Commission 
Responsibilities, Communications and Extent of 
Decision-Making 

4. Review of Over All Agency Plan Draft #5, October 1993 

5. Future of Art Commission Gallery Space and Program 







City and County of 
San Francisco 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240. San FRANCISCO. CA. 94102 TEL. 415.252.2590 kax 415.252.25 r 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

*Pursuant to City policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 Americans 
with Disabilities Act, all City ageticies will make reasonable accommodations to the needs of persons 
with disabilities. 

Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee Meetings of the Art Commission will 
be held at 25 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Oak and Van Ness. 
All meetings are held in Suite 70, basement level, and can be accessed by the two main 
elevators in the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those in wheelchairs, will be 
available. 

Accessible curbside parking has been designated on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and 
Franklin Street. 

Accessible MUNI lines that serve this location are: 

J, K, L, M, and N Trains --stopping at Van Ness and Market, 

one-half block from the building. 

9, 26, and 42 Buses-serving the area of Van Ness and Market. 

Civic Center BART, located at the intersection of Grove, Hyde, and Market Streets. 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call our accessibility hotline at (415) 554-8925 to discuss meeting accessibility. In 
order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the city to 
accomodate these individuals. 

American sign language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available upon 
request at meetings. Please contact Sonia Gray in the Community Arts and Education Program at 
(415)554-9671 at least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible. 






t? 



AK) is" 'DEC 2-1! 



Notes from Long Range Planning Meeting with Artsmarke^N FRANCISCO 
November 4, 1993^ 



Commissioners Present 



Staff Present: 



Public Present 



Anne Healy, Steve Nakajo, Dodie 
Rosekrans, Terri Simon, Liza Zenni 

K. Bell, J. Cheung, S. Gray, H. 
Lazar, D. Lehane, T. Macneil, 
J. Manton, R. Newirth, S. Pontious, 
J. Tannen, A. Wettrich, J.C. Winship 

Richard Rineccus 



Since there was not a quorum present of Commissioners 
for a long range planning committee, the meeting was 
dismissed with no action taken on agenda items. The 
following discussion was held. 

Clarification as to wording of the proposed by-laws, 
page 7, Article 4.6, a. 3 was discussed and agreed upon. 

Louise Stevens of Artsmarket relayed the success of 
meeting with department representatives over review of the 
Arts Policy Plan, Implementation Goals and Objectives. 
After incorporating revisions made by staff of the Art 
Commission and other agencies, the implementing actions will 
be presented to the Art Commission for approval. 

The final draft, #5, of the Art Commission strategic 
plan was reviewed with no revisions suggested. The plan 
will be presented to the full Commission for approval. 

As a result of the bond measure, Proposition A failing 
at the polls, Ms. Stevens facilitated a discussion on 
program and facility issues of the cultural centers and how 
the Commission might approach addressing them. It was 
suggested to look at each center separately and to enter 
into facilitated discussions concerning long term solutions. 

The Art Commission gallery was also discussed, 
especially in terms of next steps to take upon failure of 
the bond measure. With a Class 4 rating, the most unsafe in 
terms of seismic liability, the staff will research 
alternative spaces in the Civic Center area and review 
"spaceless" programming options. 



Notes continued from Long Range Planning Meeting: Nov. 4 

Procedures for staf f-Commi ssioner responsibilities, 
communications, and decision making were discussed. It was 
suggested for all programs, that an annual review of 
procedures, responsibilities and roles of Commissioners, 
panels, staff and grantees or contractors would be 
beneficial. For the public art program, a three phase 
review process was recommended similar to other grants 
programs: 1 . Review for approval the project criteria or RFP 
and potential panelists. 2. Review for approval conceptual 
proposals or recommendations of selection panel as it 
relates to project criteria. 3. Review for approval the 
proposed final public art project concept. 

The need to clarify what requires committee review and 
approval versus past practices in committee of "critiquing" 
of artistic details, was stressed due to the increase in 
volume of projects resulting from the airport and Market 
Street Art in Transit. It was recommended to formalize 
staff review of projects once they have been conceptually 
approved and in development. The curatorial staff would be 
responsible for monitoring the project. If there are any 
developments or modifications which may be questionable, the 
staff will request review by the Director of the Commission 
to judge whether the proposal has strayed from the project 
criteria. If so, the project is brought before the 
committee for review. This process does not limit informal 
communication between staff and Commissioner on a particular 
project. 

To aid in the review and approval process for civic 
design review, it was recommended to hold "philosophical" 
discussions prior to the start of major projects to 
communicate Commission design concerns to all involved in 
advance. 



Notes prepared by Joanne Chow Winship 



J l 2 






* HOUCHEN . 
(+ BINDERY LTD A 
\ * UTICA/OMAHA NE * 

200f